High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Krishna v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1271 of 2006  RD-AH 7431 (6 April 2006)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1271 of 2006
Krishna Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
This application has been filed by the applicant Krishna with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. C-6 of 2005 under section 498-A, 364 I.P.C. and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kopaganj district Mau.
The prosecution story in brief is that in the present case an F.I.R. was lodged by one Munni Lal at P.S. Kopaganj on 4.3.2005 at about 12.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 8.2.2004 against the applicant, who is the husband of the victim, and four others co-accused persons in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. According to the prosecution version the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Smt. Rekha, daughter of the first informant, on 2.5.2001. There was a demand of Rs. 30,000/-, T.V., Sewing Machine and Ceiling Fan. To fulfill the aforesaid demand of dowry, Smt. Rekha was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and other co-accused persons. She had written letters to her parents. Thereafter, the first informant, tried to contact the applicant and other co-accused persons, but he was denied interview on two occasions. Lastly on 8.9.2004 an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the first informant, the same was allowed and the F.I.R. was registered on 14.3.2005. Smt. Rekha, wife of the applicant, has not been recovered, live or dead
Heard Sri S.M. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the opposite party.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant :-
I.That there was no demand of dowry. She was never subjected to cruelty. She was maintained as house wife by the applicant and the allegation in respect of demand of dowry by way of subjecting her to cruelty is absolutely false and baseless.
II.That no F.I.R. was lodged at the P.S. immediately after the alleged occurrence. The F.I.R. has been lodged in pursuance of the order passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and it has been lodged after six months of the alleged occurrence and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R.
III.That Smt. Rekha was permanently residing at the house of the applicant as his wife and he has not been kidnapped from the house of the first informant for committing her murder and disposing of her dead body. Therefore, no case under section 364 I.P.C. is made.
IV.That Smt. Rekha had fled away from the house of the applicant on 28.8.2004 without giving any information to the applicant and his family member.
V.That extensive search was made by the applicant and his family members. This information was also given to the police station by the applicant about the missing of Smt. Rekaha, which was registered as report no. 29 at about 12.30 p.m. Thereafter, investigation started by the police but Smt. Rekha has not been traced out.
VI.That she was a lady of bad character and she is habitual of leaving the house of the applicant without any permission of the applicant. Its information was given to the first informant etc.
VII.That there is no evidence against the applicant to show that the deceased was abducted and she has been murdered by the applicant and others.
It has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant by submitting :-
1)That the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 2.5.2001, there was demand of dowry as mentioned in the F.I.R. and to fulfill the demand of dowry she was subjected to cruelty.
2)That the deceased was murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons. She was living at the house of the applicant and there is no evidence to show that she was having illicit relations with any other person and she left the house of the applicant without his permission.
3)That the information of Gumshudgi has been given by the applicant as a Peshbandi only to save his skin from the criminal liability.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant, considering the fact that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is rejected.
Accordingly the bail application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.