High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Girja Devi & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 24305 of 2006  RD-AH 2059 (8 February 2007)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24305 of 2006
1. Girja Devi
2. Ram Pal Singh................................applicants
State of U.P.............Opposite party
Hon. Ravindra Singh, J.
This application has been filed by Girja Devi and Ram Pal Singh with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime No. 182 of 2006 under section 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Paraur, District Shahjahanpur. The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Rajendra Singh on 31.7.2006 at 7.10 P.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 30.7.2006 at about 4.00 P.M. The distance of the police station was about four kilometers from the alleged place of the occurrence. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Shreewati was solemnized with the co-accused Bhupendra, the son of the applicants about five years prior to the alleged incident, she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws to fulfill demand of dowry. On 31.7.2006 the first informant got an information that on 30.7.2006 at about 4.00 P.M. the deceased had committed suicide by way of hanging. Thereafter the first informant went to the village of the applicants where he came to know that the deceased was murdered by the applicants and co-accused Bhupendra on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased received three anti mortem injuries, in which injury No. 1 was ligature mark on the front of the neck, injury No. 2 was contusion 3X2 c.m. on the left side face just below the lower eyelid and injury No. 3 was lacerated wound 2X1/2 c.m. cartilage deep on the just below left pupil.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 is mother-in-law and applicant No. 2 is father-in-law of the deceased. They were having no concerned with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. Even according to the prosecution version the marriage of the deceased was solemnized about five years prior to the alleged incident. There is no documentary evidence to show that any demand of dowry and committing the cruelty with the deceased is absolutely false and frivolous. There is no allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty to fulfill the demand of dowry soon before her death. The deceased has committed suicide because she was living in tension due to unemployment of her husband. The information in respect of the death of the deceased was given to the first informant. The conduct of the applicants is above board. The deceased has committed suicide not on account of fulfillment of demand of dowry. The applicant No. 2 was not present at his house at the time of alleged incident, he was on his official duty on a Polio booth, Primary School, Golaganj. The applicants are innocent They have not committed any offence but due to some ulterior motive they have been falsely implicated in the present case. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the death of the deceased is unnatural which had occurred within seven years of her marriage. There was a demand of dowry. The applicants and the husband of the deceased were demanding a motorcycle and not to fulfillment the demand of dowry they were subjecting to the deceased to the cruelty, for the same reason there had been a panchayat. According to post mortem report, it appears that the deceased has not committed the suicide but she was hanged by the applicants and the deceased had received three anti mortem injuries which also indicate that she was hanged by using force. The plea of the alibi taken by the applicant no. 2 shall be considered at the stage of the trial. The applicants being mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased, therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail.
Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and considering the post mortem report and without expressing any opinion on the merit of case the applicants are not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly this application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.