Vipul Kumar JaIn Vs. State

Vipul Kumar Jain vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 11, 1992

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/693905

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/693905
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mohd. Sharnim, J.
Decided On: Nov 11, 1992
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1374 and 2151 of 1992
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The bail was sought by the accused under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on the ground that the deceased and the accused were living together happily and there was no reason for maltreating and harassing the deceased - Whereas, the parents of the deceased alleged the accused for harassing the decea...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vipul Kumar Jain

Advocate D.C. Mathur,; K.B. Andley and; P.K. Bahri, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439
Reported In: 48(1992)DLT695; I(1993)DMC31

Excerpt

the bail was sought by the accused under section 439 of the criminal procedure code, 1973, on the ground that the deceased and the accused were living together happily and there was no reason for maltreating and harassing the deceased - whereas, the parents of the deceased alleged the accused for harassing the deceased for the want of dowry - after judging all the facts and circumstances of the case, the court refused the bail to the accused - - anita was living a happy, peaceful married life as is manifest from the photographs placed on the record......him that she was being beaten and ill-treated for bringing insufficient dowry. then there in the statement of nirmal prasad jain, father of the deceased, and smt. sudha jain, mother of the deceased. both of them have reiterated that whenever the deceased got pregnant she was dropped at their house for the purpose of delivery. on each delivery there was a demandofrs.lo,000.00 . then, to the same effect are the statements of suresh chand jain and usha jain. then, the learned pp has led me through the statement of shri sardar singh, additional sho. ps jama masjid. he averred that when he reached the spot he found the deceased on the ground floor, wrapped with a white sheet of cloth. on going upstairs at the place of occurrence he found that the spot had been cleaned with water and even the kerosene tin container had been removed. the police was informed at 9.15 p.m. i.e. two hours after the occurrence. (4) in the circumstances stated above, i do not see any force in the present applications. the applications are hereby dismissed. let a copy of this order be placed on each of the two files. (5) the file of the trial court be sent back. applications dismissed.

Full Judgment

Mohd. Sharnim, J.

(1) These are two applications by Smt. Som Prabha Jain and Vipul Kumar Jain for release on bail.

(2) Learned Counsel for the petitioners i.e. Mr. D.C. Mathur and Mr. K.B. Andley have contended that the petitioners are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. The deceased Smt. Anita was living a happy, peaceful married life as is manifest from the photographs placed on the record. There is a delay of four days in the lodging of the Fir inasmuch as the occurrence took place at 7.30 p.m. on 4.1.1992. Fir was registered on 8.1.1992. The deceased was a nominee in the Life Insurance Policy which the petitioner Vipul Kumar Jain took on 28.3.1991. The deceased was made a partner in a partnership deed dated 12.6.90 with Mr. R.K.Jain and others. 100 Units were also purchased by the petitioner Vipul Kumar Jain in the name of the deceased Smt. Anita. In view of the above, it has been urged that the above conduct is not that of the persons who would maltreat or ill-treat the deceased.

(3) The learned Pp, on the other hand, have led me through the statement of Sharad Jain, a neighbour who is living in the same house where the occurrence took place. According to him, on hearing the shrieks of the deceased he rushed to the spot and found the deceased aflame. According to him, petitioner Vipul Kumar Jain was there. He tried to extinguish the fire by throwing water on the person of the deceased. Then, there is the statement of Anil Kumar Jain. He went to the house of the deceased to deliver an invitation card on the date of occurrence. The deceased on the said date informed him that she was being beaten and ill-treated for bringing insufficient dowry. Then there in the statement of Nirmal Prasad Jain, father of the deceased, and Smt. Sudha Jain, mother of the deceased. Both of them have reiterated that whenever the deceased got pregnant she was dropped at their house for the purpose of delivery. On each delivery there was a demandofRs.lO,000.00 . Then, to the same effect are the statements of Suresh Chand Jain and Usha Jain. Then, the learned Pp has led me through the statement of Shri Sardar Singh, Additional SHO. Ps Jama Masjid. He averred that when he reached the spot he found the deceased on the ground floor, wrapped with a white sheet of cloth. On going upstairs at the place of occurrence he found that the spot had been cleaned with water and even the kerosene tin container had been removed. The police was informed at 9.15 p.m. i.e. two hours after the occurrence.

(4) In the circumstances stated above, I do not see any force in the present applications. The applications are hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed on each of the two files.

(5) The file of the trial Court be sent back. Applications dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1992 Same Parties Vipul Kumar Jain vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Mohd. Sharnim, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Criminal