High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kishun Lal @ Mashalu & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20442 of 2004  RD-AH 2708 (6 February 2006)
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20442 of 2004
Kishun Lal @ Mashalu and another Vs. . . . .State of U.P.
The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2004 , under sections 498-A, 304B and 201 I.P.C and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Rampur District Jaunpur.
The bail application , in respect of the applicant no. 2 Hub Lal, was partly allowed by Hon'ble C. P.Misra, J vide order dated 23.12.2004 on the ground that he was cousin father - in - law of the deceased and he was residing in a separate house . The prayer for grant of bail to applicant no.1 Kishun Lal was, however, kept pending .
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State in respect of bail application of applicant no.1 Kishun Lal alias Mashalau and perused the record.
The prosecution case starts with a F.I.R. lodged by Sri Sant Lal Gupta at Police Station Rampur District Jaunpur on 14.8..2004 at 3.30 P.M. It was stated therein that the marriage of his daughter Smt. Sudha had taken place with the accused Sant Lal Gupta . On 31.7.04 he received information that Hub Lal and Mashalu sons of Baudam Gupta had murdered Sudha and after committingr murder her dead body was disposed of. Sudha was being tortured by her in laws in connection with demand of dowry and she used to complain the atrocities being committed by her in laws.
On the basis of above report a case under sections 498A/304 B/201 I.P.C. were registered against the accused , her in laws Subsequently on the basis of so called suicidal note of Smt. Sudha it was converted under section 306 I.P.C. Thereafter during investigation the names of Smt. Prema Devi wife of Ram Kishun alias Mashalu and Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Hub Lal were also added and ultimately , after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the above named four accused persons under sections 498-A, 304B and 201 I.P.C and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.
The applicant has alleged that he is innocent and he has falsely been implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to suicidal note of Smt. Sudha and contended that it was a case of suicide committed by her and actually there was no demand of dowry nor any atrocity was committed upon her and that is why the case was converted under section 306 I.P.C. but thereafter under pressure of the complainant the names of Smt. Prema Devi wife of Ram Kishan alias Mashalu and Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Hub Lal were also included and charge sheet was submitted under section 304 B I.P.C. It was submitted that in this case except the applicant Kishun Lal all other accused have already been granted bail and so the applicant should also be bailed out.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and he submitted in reply that the bail was granted to Smt. Prema Devi and Urmila Devi because they were not named in the F.I.R. and Hub Lal was residing in a separate house and was not a family member of Ram Kishun. He submitted that the applicant Ram Kishun is real father in law of the deceased and deceased was residing in his house . He further pointed out that the husband of the deceased was residing at Bombay for his livelihood and since there was no allegation against him he was not implicated in the case. It was further submitted that actually there was demand of dowry and atrocities were being committed by accused upon the deceased and the malafidies of the accused are clear from this fact that after the death of Sudha no information was given either to her parents or to the police and the dead body was disposed of without preparation of inquest report and post mortem report. He submitted that even if it was a case of suicide as alleged by the accused and even if she had left suicidal note , it was essential to give information to the authority concerned about the incident so that inquest report might have been prepared and post mortem of the dead body could be performed . It was not done so . Learned counsel for the applicant submitted in reply that the father of the deceased was informed and he was present at the time of cremation. Learned A.G.A. submits that there is nothing on record to show that any information was given to the parents of the deceased and any one of their family was present when funeral of the deceased took place and so the applicant does not deserve bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the aforesaid fact that the dead body of the deceased was disposed of without any information to the parents of the deceased and without preparation of the inquest report and without performing post mortem of the dead body, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The application is rejected.
However, since it appears from perusal of the record that the case is pending for trial and the applicant has been in Jail since October,2004, the trial court shall try to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period for no fault of the accused , the applicant would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application .
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge , Jaunpur immediately by the Office.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.