Jai Karan Pal vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Jai Karan Pal with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sumerpur district Hamirpur.

The prosecution story in brief is that information about the death of the deceased was given by Ram Karan at P.S. Sumerpur on 8.8.2006 at about 10.15 a.m. alleging therein that by consuming poisonous substance the deceased has committed suicide. On that information inquest report was prepared on 8.2.2006, at that time the applicant, first informant Sudarshan and his family members were present. Thereafter, the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged on 9.3.2006 at about 12.35 p.m. in which the applicant and five other co-accused persons are named. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant on 6.5.2001. The in-laws of the deceased were demanding Rs. 50,000 and one motor cycle and to fulfill their demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. According to the post-mortem examination report, no ante-mortem injury was seen on the person of the deceased. The cause of death could not be ascertained, hence the viscera was preserved. According to the viscera report organo chloro insecticide poison was found.

Heard Sri V. C. Misra holding brief of Sri V. S. Parmar and Sri T. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 6.5.2001 as mentioned in the F.I.R., information about the death of the deceased was given to the first informant and his family members and its information was given to the police station concerned by the applicant side, the first informant is the witness of the inquest report. He did not make any allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons in respect of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty, at the time of preparation of the inquest report, but after one month of the alleged incident, the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged after great thought and consultation in which the allegations of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty have been made, which are absolutely false and frivolous because there was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty but under some frustration she consumed poison and committed suicide.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. The allegation of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty to fulfill the same has been made against the applicant and other co-accused persons and no reason for committing suicide has been shown by the Appellant. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. He is the main accused ; therefore, he may not he released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the fact that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, and the death is unnatural 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.