Arvind vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Arvind with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 107 of 2007 under sections 4.98A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut

The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Ompal Singh on 16.3.2007 at 02.10 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 16.3.2007 alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Mamta was solemnized with the applicant on 28.2.2007, the applicant demanded Rs. 2 Lacs as dowry and to fulfil the demand of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty. On 16.3.2007 the information was given by some person to Yogendra Pal Singh Yogi that the deceased had died. The first informant was apprised by this information thereafter the first informant along with some other villagers went to the house of the applicant where they saw the deceased in a dead condition. According to the postmortem examination report the deceased has sustained three ante mortem injuries. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throatling. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Meerut who rejected the same on 4.10.2007. Being aggrieved from the order dated 4.10.2007 the applicant has moved the present bail application.

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri V.K. Singh and Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution version the deceased has died within 16 days of her marriage. The allegation in respect of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to the cruelty is absolutely false and baseless because there was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty. The deceased has committed suicide on account of some other reason because prior her marriage, she was having some illicit relation with some other persons, according to the post mortem examination report also the deceased was having pregnancy.

It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the information of the death of the deceased was given to the first informant and his family members, on that information they came at the place of the incident. It is also contended that deceased herself committed suicide inside a room in which the doors were bolted from inside. The applicant came to the place of the occurrence and found that the doors of his room were locked and it appears that various calls given by the applicant and his family members but the door was not opened then it was broken and the dead body of the deceased was found in a hanging condition. In the present case the colour of dowry has been given to conceal the real facts by the first informant and there is no other evidence to show that there was any demand of dowry and deceased was ever subjected to cruelty.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the deceased was killed within 16 days of her marriage. There was a specific allegation against the applicant that there was demand of Rs. 2 Lacs as dowry and to fulfil the demand of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty. According to the post mortem examination report it is not a case of suicide but the deceased has been killed by way of throatling and three ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The applicant is husband of the deceased. The death of the deceased was unnatural, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of this case/submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A, learned Counsel for the complainant and considering the fact that in the present case the marriage of the deceased was solemnized within 16 days prior her death, the cause of death is unnatural and according to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained three ante mortem injuries, the cause of death was due to throatling. There was a demand of dowry for which the deceased was allegedly subjected to cruelty, the applicant is husband of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected.