Badan Singh vs State of U.P.

Virendra Singh, J.—This bail application has been moved on behalf of Badan Singh seeking bail in Case Crime No. 292/2008 under Sections 498A, 304B and 109/120, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act pertaining to P.S. Baresar, district Ghazipur.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State of U.P.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused-applicant is involved in a case of dowry death of his daughter-in-law named Soni alongwith his son Markandey Singh, the husband of the deceased, thereby harassing the deceased on demand of dowry, for which it is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, the prosecution story is not only improbable, but absurd too, while the deceased had committed suicide by using Aluminum Phosphate found after analysis of viscera. It is also contended that since the medical report does not tally with the allegation of the prosecution case that Soni was found hanging with the fan, therefore, the accused-applicant should be enlarged on bail.

It is also contended on behalf of the applicant that Aluminum Phosphate is a common pesticide. There is no mark of any injury, torture or cruelty found on the person of the deceased. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased who may hardly be said to have been involved in the case of dowry death of his daughter-in-law.

Learned A.G.A. contended that despite the fact that Aluminum Phosphate is found in the viscera of the deceased, the fact found on the spot that the dead body was hanging with the fan in the house of the applicant may not be a fact occurred and committed by only one person and at least two persons are required to hang a lady even after her death with a fan. Learned A.G.A. further opposed that the father-in-law, the accused-applicant in this case, may not be said to have been involved in commission of this crime.

Looking into the entire facts and circumstances on record and without entering into the merits of the case and giving any finding on the facts as aforesaid, I am of the view that that the accused-applicant aforesaid is not entitled for bail in such type of heinous and non-bailable crime committed in this case as per prosecution case.

Therefore, this bail application does not deserve to be allowed and is hereby rejected.