Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAY BAJPAI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajay Bajpai v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15602 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15067 (1 September 2006)

 

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. 47

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15602 of 2006

Ajay Bajpai Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application has been filed by the applicant Ajay Bajpai with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. C-17 of 2005 under sections 498-A, 304 B I.P.C. and under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Ajeetmal district Auriayya.

The prosecution story in brief is that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Subhash Chand on 13.11.2005 at 8.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 30.5.2005. The distance of the police station was about 10 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was registered in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.  The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused Smt. Manjula Bajpai alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant on 6.2.2003. In the marriage Hero Honda motorcycle  and a colour T.V. was not given to the applicant that is why the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and other co-accused. They were demanding the same and to fulfill the demand of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The applicant and other co-accused were giving intoxicating substance in the medicines. There had been a Panchayat between the parties on 30.5.2005 and an attempt was made by the applicant and others to commit the murder of the deceased and by way of providing poisonous substance the deceased was murdered. The first informant went to the house of the applicant and found that the deceased was not present there. On the next day the applicant and other co-accused were trying to cremate the dead body, which was opposed by the first informant. The first informant went to the police station and gave an application but the said application was not reduced in writing. Thereafter, the first informant went to the S.S.P. Etawah and on his interference the post mortem examination was conducted even then the case was not registered at the police station. Thereafter, the first informant moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court and the same was allowed by the learned magistrate concerned. Thereafter the F.I.R. was registered.  According to the Post Mortem Examination Report the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera were preserved, but in viscera report Aluminum Phosphate poison was found.

Heard Sri V.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. and Sri Santosh Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant:

1.There was no demand of dowry the deceased died due to reaction of the medicines consumed by her. She expired in the hospital during treatment.

2.That proper information was given to the first informant and on that information the first informant and other persons came to the hospital and they were satisfied that the death of the deceased was natural and has given in writing to the Station Officer P.S. Auraiyya that the deceased has died in the hospital due to her illness. Therefore, he did not want to initiate any proceedings against the applicant and others. The applicant beard heavy expenses. Her treatment was done at Gawalior. The applicant made all efforts to save the life of the deceased but unfortunately she died.

3.That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case after great thought and consultation because at the time of inquest report prepared by the magistrate and at the time of the post mortem Examination the first informant and others persons were present there and in their presence cremation was done and the first informant has given an application to the station Officer concerned that the death of the deceased was natural due to her illness and he did not want to initiate any proceedings against the applicant but due to ulterior motive after great thought and consultation an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant

I.That the deceased has died within three years of her marriage.

II.That there was a demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty and to fulfill the demand of dowry the deceased was administered pension consequently she died and in viscera report also the poison of Aluminum Phosphate was found. The applicant being the husband of the deceased is the sole responsible person to commit the death of the deceased whereas he was under obligation to protect the life of the deceased.

I.That it has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that by force it has been got reduced in writing by the first informant that the deceased has died due to her illness. Therefore such application addressed to the Station Officer, P.S. Ajeetmal district Auriayya cannot be used against the prosecution. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the report it appears that in the present case the deceased has died within three years of her marriage, the  cause of  death was not natural because  poison of Aluminum Phosphate was found in viscera report and there is allegation of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty to fulfill the same and the applicant is the husband  of the deceased who is solely  responsible to protect the interest of his wife but he failed to do so and did otherwise and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.

Dt. 1.9.2006

NA


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.