High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mahraj Singh v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1019 of 2007  RD-AH 2248 (12 February 2007)
Court No. 47
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1019 of 2007
Mahraj Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Hon. Ravindra Singh, J.
This application has been filed by the applicant Mahraj Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 116 of 2006 under sectin 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C.,P.S. Chhata, District Mathura.
The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Subedar Bhagwan Singh on 27.7.2006 at about 7.00 P.M. in respect of the incident which has occurred in the night of 24/25.7.2006. The applicant and nine other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Krishna Kumari was solemnized with co-accused Ram Gopal, the younger brother of the applicant about 16 years prior to alleged incident. The deceased gave birth to a child namely Dinesh who is about 15 years. The deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and she was expelled from his house, about six or seven years prior the alleged incident husband of the deceased performed his second marriage. The deceased filed a case claiming the maintenance allowance, the same was allowed and co-accused Ram Gopal was directed to pay the maintenance allowance. The deceased was also living in her Sasural but she was subjected to cruelty by applicant and on many occasion she was beaten by the applicant Mahraj Singh and compelled to leave his village. On 24.7.2006 Dinesh Kumar, the son of the deceased went to the house of the first informant and gave information that he along with his mother were beaten by the applicant and other co-accused, on 25.7.2006 the first informant went to the house of the deceased but her house was found locked. On 26.7.2006 a news item was published in Amar Ujala daily newspaper, the same was read by the first informant, thereafter he came to the martury, Mathura and identified the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was handed over to the first informant after conducting the post mortem examination, its cremation was done by the first informant and others. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused have committed the murder of the deceased, thereafter her body was thrown in to the canal on 25.7.2006, its information was given to the police station Chhata by the Chowkidar at 4.30 P.M. on 25.7.2006. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received three ante mortem injuries and post mortem acid burn injuries. The cause of death was due to smothering.
Heard Sri Veer Singh, holding the brief of Sri V.K. Mishra and Sri K.S. Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. Sri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is Jeth of the deceased, it is not a case of dowry death and there is no direct eye witness account. The deceased was having no concern with the family affairs of the deceased because the brother of the applicant has also been married with some other woman and he was directed to pay the maintenance allowance to the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Ram Gopal, the brother of the applicant about 16 years prior the alleged incident. During investigating the only evidence of last seen has been collected by the I.O. The witnesses of such evidence are not reliable because they are relative of the first informant. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed any offence. He may be released on bail.
In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the main allegation is against the applicant prior the incident also he was committing cruelty with the deceased and he was compelling her to leave the village. Prior the alleged incident the deceased was seen in the company of the applicant in a vehicle. The deceased was brutally murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons, thereafter the acid was poured on her person and the dead body was thrown into a canal and no information about the death of the deceased has been given by the applicant or the family members. Therefore, the applicant may not be entitled for bail.
Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant, considering the gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is 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.