RAJU versus STATE OF U.P

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Raju v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6459 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7526 (14 December 2005)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 19

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6459 of 2005

Raju.....Vs.....State of U.P.

...

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the material on record.

The applicant Raju is involved in case crime No. 544 of 2004, for the offence under Sections 302,201 I.P.C. and  Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Police Station Saiyan, district Agra.

It is alleged that the marriage was solemnized in December 1997. As the member  of her in-laws family were not satisfied  with the dowry, they started making harassment of the victim. They also made demand for additional dowry and due to non fulfillment they harassed the victim before the death. An information was received  by the complainant that on 22.9.2004   the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and two brother-in-laws have set the lady victim  on fire and then fled away. The report was lodged on 23.9.2004 at 9.30 a.m. by Bhupendra Kumar ( brother of the victim). During investigation it was found that marriage was solemnized  on 12.12.1996 that is beyond 7 years. Therefore, Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. were dropped and now the case is  only under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. read with Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Admittedly  the body was not inquested upon. There was also no post mortem of the body. Surprisingly,  in the rejection order the learned Sessions Judge (Sri S.K.Samadhiya) as Incharge Sessions Judge, Agra has mentioned  that post mortem  reveals that  ante mortem burn injuries were  the cause of her death. Considering the gravity of the matter, he refused the bail.

As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and the supporting evidence it is argued   that   as mentioned hereinbefore the foundation of the prosecution case itself becomes doubtful because initially the report was lodged under Sections 498-A/ 304-B/201, I.P.C alleging demand of dowry and cruelty causing unnatural death within 7 years of marriage. But these allegations were found baseless and the charge-sheet  was  submitted  under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act . The main   Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. were dropped in the absence  of any prima facie evidence to that effect. Secondly, it is argued  that almost all the witnesses  namely , Keshav Deo,  Prem Pal, Bhagirath, Rajveer, Ravindra Singh, Rajendra, Gopal, Gajendra Singh whose statements were recorded  under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  ( copies on record) have not  indicated about the demand of dowry or consequent harassment. It is also emphasized that almost all of them also deposed  that lady was issueless  due to which she had become short tampered. Day before the incident some verbal dispute between husband and wife  also took place. The learned counsel for the applicant  also pointed out  towards a strong circumstance and bonafide  conduct  in respect of informing about the incident to the  complainant and attending of funeral by them. Although in the F.I.R. it is mentioned  that the information regarding incident  was received  at 9.00 p.m. on the day of lodging  the report  that is on 23.9.2004, but the mother and two brothers admitted in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the information was received  on  the day of incident itself  i.e. on 22.9.2005 on telephone at   5.00 p.m. Witness Rajveer, Ravindra and Gopal who are neighbours, have categorically  stated that the complainant side also attended  the funeral. It is also pointed out that as no case could be found against mother-in-law, her name was dropped. Besides father-in-law and both brother-in-laws have already been bailed out. Lastly, it is reiterated that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected his bail application wrongly on the ground of post mortem report whereas as per record post mortem never took place.

The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A.

The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of the Court  regarding  proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution  case were duly considered.

 In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, taking into  consideration some of the arguments, advanced on behalf of the applicant in respect of the points discussed herein above, without prejudice to the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.  

 Dt. 14.12.2005.

Rkb.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.