Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri. I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

This application has been filed by the applicant Ashok Kumar Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1599 of 2009 under Sections 498A, 306, 302, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Sumerpur district Hamirpur.

The facts, in brief of this case are that the first information report has been lodged by Rajendra Singh alias Bhoora Singh on 23.10.2008 at 3.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4.7.2008, the first information report has been lodged in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate concerned in exercise of the power conferred u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Menka Devi was solemnized with the applicant before six or seven year prior the alleged incident and from their wedlock a male child aged about 1-1/2, who is also deceased, was born, the demand of dowry was raised for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty. Ultimately the deceased Smt. Menka Devi and her son were done to death by the applicant and other co-accused persons. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased Smt. Menka Devi had sustained ante-mortem injury, the cause of death was ante-mortem hanging and the deceased Slok had sustained superficial impression marks over the neck, the cause of death was due to ante-mortem strangulation. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur who rejected the same on 22.5.2009.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in this case the wife and son of the deceased have lost their lives, the deceased Smt. Menka Devi, wife of the applicant was frustrated due to her poor health etc. first of all, she committed the murder of her child aged about 1-1/2 years by way of strangulation, thereafter, she committed suicide by way of hanging. There was no reason for the applicant to commit the murder of his son aged about 1-1/2 years, the prosecution itself is not sure whether the deceased Menka Devi has been murdered or she has committed suicide due to her own problem that is why the investigation under Sections 498A, 302 and 306, I.P.C. is going on, there is no evidence to show that the deceased Smt. Menka Devi was abetted by the applicant to commit the murder of her son, thereafter she committed suicide. There is no evidence to show that the deceased Smt. Menka Devi was forcibly hanged by the applicant and other co-accused persons and the murder of 1-1/2 years child has been committed by the applicant, in such a situation the conviction of the applicant is not possible.

In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that it is a case in which the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Menka Devi, he is the father of Slok, for the sake of argument if it is accepted that Smt. Menka Devi had committed the murder of her son and thereafter she has committed suicide, the deceased Menka Devi was abetted by the applicant to do so, whereas according to the post-mortem examination report this argument is not substantiated, because Smt. Menka Devi had sustained ligature mark on her neck and some other injuries were also present on her person indicating that she was put on hanging. The demand of dowry was also raised. The applicant being the husband of the deceased is the main accused, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in this case wife of the deceased and 1-1/2 year old son of the deceased have lost their lives, the cause of death of the deceased Slok was due to strangulation and the cause of death of the deceased Smt. Menka Devi was due to hanging, she also sustained some ante-mortem injuries also. The applicant being the husband of the deceased is the main accused and without expressing any merits of the case the applicant is not entitled to bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.