High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Raju v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6459 of 2005  RD-AH 7526 (14 December 2005)
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.