Brijesh alias Rajesh vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—The applicant Brijesh alias Rajesh who is the husband of the deceased Vinita Devi has applied for bail through the present application in Crime Number 1098 of 2005 under Sections 304B/498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act, Police Station Bhamora, district Bareilly.

Counter-affidavits filed by the learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the informant Sri B. A. Khan today in Court, after serving it''s copy to the counsel for the applicant are taken on record. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the applicant states that he does not propose to file any rejoinder-affidavit.

Briefly stated the allegations against the applicant are that the applicant was married three years prior to the deceased Vinita Devi daughter of Narottam who was the grand daughter (natin) of the informant Nathu Ram. In the marriage dowry according to the economic availability was given by the informant including one lakh rupees cash, a motorcycle, and gold, silver ornaments. However the in-laws and their family members were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding a Maruti car. The informant received a message regarding the death of Vinita on phone on 8.10.2005 from an unknown caller from village Chandpur--the village of the in- laws of the deceased. When the informant accompanied by others reached Chandpur he found the corpse of Vinita having injury marks of assault by lathi and danda. According to him she was hanged to death. Getting the F.I.R. scribed by Jitendra Kumar, the informant went to police station Bhabhora, district Bareilly and lodged it there as Crime Number 1098 of 2005 under Sections 304B/498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act. The autopsy of the deceased dated 9.10.2005 indicate that she had a contusion on front of her neck 18 x 2 cm. x 7 cm. below chin 4 cm. below right ear 5 cm. below left ear, just below thyroid cartilages. Her anus was bulging out and strangulation was recorded as cause of her death by the doctor P. K. Katiyar, Orthopedic surgeon who had conducted the autopsy.

On the abridged factual matrix of the allegations stated above I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Roshan Khan on the bail prayer of the applicant, Sri B. A. Khan, learned Counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. in opposition.

Sri Trivedi hankered with the thought of success argued vehemently that in this case the applicant is innocent and it was he who had firstly given information to the police regarding the death of the deceased (Annexure-3) and that the inquest was conducted on his information by the police. He further contended that a perusal of the inquest report indicate that the door of the room where the deceased had committed suicide, according to his case, was bolted from inside and the same was broken open by the police. He further contended that the inquest was conducted by the Magistrate and external injury was found of her body. He therefore pressed with vehemence the contention that the allegation of injuries by blunt object stated in the FIR is false. He further argued that the F.I.R. is delayed and there is no acceptable explanation for the same. He concluded by submitting that had the applicant committed the murder he would not have lodged the F.I.R. first and that the allegation of demand of dowry is false and cooked up and in fact the deceased committed suicide and the applicant is entitle to bail.

Sri B. A. Khan and the learned A.G.A., contrarily argued that the defence of suicide by the accused is bogus and the deceased was strangulated to death within seven years of her marriage because of which her anus was bulging out, cartilages was fractured with subcutaneous tissues ecchymosed. Larynx was fractured and congested with trachea and her tongue was protruding. They submitted that the photographs filed alongwith this bail application itself shows that the feet of the deceased were below the height of bed and therefore she could not have hanged herself as her feet would have rested on the bed.

I have considered all the contentions raised by the contesting side and have gone through the bail application along with the affidavit and counter-affidavits. The deceased had died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage. There are allegations of dowry against the present applicant who is the husband of the deceased. The theory of suicide is still to be established. The post mortem report is consistent with the prosecution allegation of murder and hence I see no ground to release the applicant on bail.

The bail prayer of the applicant stands rejected. Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude it within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.