High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jaideep v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15570 of 2005  RD-AH 6852 (29 March 2006)
COURT NO. 54
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 15570 OF 2005
State of U.P............................................Opposite Party.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This is a bail application on behalf of husband. Marriage of the victim had taken place with the applicant on 21.2.2003 and occurrence took place within a period of seven years on 8.3.2005. The applicant is in detention for an offence under Section 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. Submission on behalf of the applicant is that entire allegation of demand of dowry is baseless since the applicant is a transporter and is owner of twenty trucks, has sufficient means. In fact, it is a case of suicide for the reason that since six trucks were purchased and the deceased insisted her husband to get it registered in his name and not in the name of his father and mother. This led to quarrel between husband and wife, which subsequently resulted in suicide. Submission on behalf of the applicant is that according to the post mortem report, there is a legature mark in front side of neck whereas on the back of neck legature mark is absent. In fact, other symptom shows that she was not hanged but she committed suicide. Viscera report was also called for but the same has not come forth. Second submission is that there is no evidence to establish that she was subjected to cruelty, therefore, the present case will not fall within purview of Section 304-B I.P.C. Presumption as provided in Section 113-B of Evidence Act will also not be attracted.
Sri R.N. Rai, Advocate refuted and stated that there is no document brought on record that six trucks were purchased in the name of father and presumption is always there. Assuming that she was not killed while circumstances were created, which resulted in an unnatural death within a period of seven years of marriage and, therefore, it is fully covered within the definition of dowry death. It has been brought to my notice by Sri V.P. Srivastava, Advocate that the applicant is in jail since Marth, 2005, which is more than one year and the trial has not proceeded. All the other co-accused named in the First Information Report have already been granted bail. Father-in-law has also been granted bail, therefore, there is no reason as to why husband should be kept behind the bar. Emphasis has also been laid on the site plan and various statements of the witnesses. Sister-in-law, who was not residing in the house, have also been falsely implicated.
After hearing counsel for the respective parties at length, it is clear that deceased has met an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The question that six trucks were purchased in the name of father is not substantiated by any document. Since the applicant is husband, he was responsible for well being of his wife. I am not inclined to grant bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected.
However, I direct that the learned Sessions Judge shall complete the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. He shall also ensure that no undue adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.