High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Anees Alias Babu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16703 of 2005  RD-AH 5478 (8 March 2006)
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16703 of 2005
Anees alias Babu . . . . . . . . . . .Vs. . . . . . . . . . . State of U.P.
The applicant, Anees alias Babu has applied for bail in this case crime no. 01 of 2005 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act of police station Hapur Dehat district Ghaziabad.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kapil Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The prosecution case starts with a F.I.R. lodged by Mohammad Yunus at police station Hapur Dehat on 3.1.2005 at 8.50 P.M. It was stated therein that marriage of his daughter Nasreen had taken place with accused Anees alias Babu about 1 ½ years ago. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. Anees, his father Tunni, sisters Manno and Nasreen and brother Rahees were not satisfied with the dowry and they were demanding a motor cycle and cash and as he did not meet their demand of dowry, the above named accused persons murdered her on 3.1.2005 by burning her. He received this information from his sister Amna and when he went to village Phulgarhi then he saw that the dead body of his daughter was lying in the Verandah of the house. She also had a child of two months.
On the basis of the above report, the police registered a case against the accused persons, prepared inquest report of the dead body and sent it for postmortem. According to the postmortem, which was performed on 5.1.2005, cause of death of Nasreen was ante mortem burn injuries.
The applicant has alleged that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. His learned counsel has submitted that all other co-accused have already been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, but the bail application of the applicant, who is husband of the deceased, was rejected. The learned counsel further submitted that actually there was no demand of dowry and the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty are false. He further contended that according to the F.I.R. Allegations, all the five accused named in the F.I.R. had committed murder of Nasreen by burning her. He submitted that if it had been a case of murder by five accused persons there must have been some injuries upon the dead body, but a perusal of the inquest report as well as the postmortem report reveals that there were no injuries on the body except superficial burn injuries. He further contended that at the time of preparation of inquest report, Mohammad Anwar, Saheed Ahmad, Arshad Ali, Alla Rakhe and Mohammad Ahmad were present. Mohammad Anwar, who is real uncle of the deceased was nominated as Panch No.1. He further contended that Shaheed Ahmad and Arshad Ali are Sarhu of the applicant and sons-in-law of of the informant and if there had been any demand of dowry and if atrocities had been committed upon the deceased, they would have disclosed this fact when their opinion regarding cause of death was taken. In the column of Rai Panchan it has been mentioned that all the Panchas stated that death appeared to have been caused due to burn injuries and for ascertainment of the real cause of death postmortem of the dead body should be performed. He further contended that actually it was a case of suicide and since the deceased was not satisfied with her husband, who was a truck driver and who remained outside the house for about 20 days in a month and who was not in a position to give company to the deceased, she had committed suicide, and so bail should be granted to the applicant.
Sri Kapil Tiwari from the side of the complainant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State have opposed the bail application. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in this case it was stated in the F.I.R. lodged on 3.1.2005 that the accused were committing atrocities upon the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry and so it is immaterial that this fact was not reiterated in the inquest report which was prepared on 4.1.2005. He further submitted that there is evidence of the informant and other witnesses to this effect that the accused were making demand of dowry and were committing atrocities upon the deceased. He further contended that allegation of the applicant that he being a truck driver had to remain outside the house for more than 15 to 20 days in a month, and so the deceased was not satisfied with him and so she committed suicide is false. He submitted that this grievance could be there just after the marriage, but in the present case the deceased had given birth to a child who was aged about two months at the time of her death. He contended that a mother having a child of tender age of two months in her lap, who is totally dependent upon her, would never have committed suicide, even if she was dis-satisfied with her husband. He pointed out that according to the postmortem report smell of kerosene oil was coming from the entire body of the deceased. He submitted that since theory of suicide is falsified taking into consideration the presence of a child of two months only, it is a clear cut case of murder by burning after pouring kerosene oil upon the body of the deceased. He further submitted that it is also not a case of accidental burning because in that case smell of kerosene oil could not come from the entire body. He further submitted that the applicant is husband of the deceased and so he cannot escape his liability when she had died an unnatural death within a period of less than two years from the date of marriage.
The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the deceased had never complained to her parents that the accused were making demand of dowry, nor any complaint was filed in any court in this regard, nor there is anything to show that demand of dowry was made soon before the death and so in view of the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point, bail should be granted to the applicant. In reply the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the informant has stated in his statement made under section 161 Cr.P.C. that whenever his daughter came to his house, she told him and other family members about the demand of dowry and atrocities committed upon her; and besides the informant, other witnesses have also stated in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. about this demand as told by the deceased to them. He further submitted that it is not necessary to lodge a complaint in court in respect of the demand of dowry and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on the ground that no such complaint had been filed. He further submitted that in this case death of Nasreen had taken place within a period of 1 ½ years from the date of marriage , and it had come in the statements of the informant and other witnesses that when ever Nasreen came to the house of her parents, she told them about the demand of dowry made by the accused and atrocities being committed upon her, and taking this short span of 1 ½ years into account, it cannot be said that there was a long gap between the incidents of demand of dowry and death of the deceased.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances pointed out before me, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve to be bailed out. This bail application is, therefore, rejected.
However, I direct the trial court to complete the trial of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the trial is not completed within this period by the trial court without any fault of the accused, the applicant shall be entitled to move fresh bail application.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.