Jalaluddin Accused vs State of U.P.

Vedpal, J.

This is the third bail application, though moved earlier than the two already rejected. The accusedapplicant Jalaluddin, is detained in Case Crime No. 491 of 2007 under Sections 498A,304B I.P.C. and � Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pasgawan ,district Kheri. The first bail application no. 2426 of 2008 was rejected on 23.5.2008 and second bail application no. 56 of 2009 was rejected on 12.1.2009 as nonpressed.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State .

It is argued on behalf of the applicant regarding genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence that he has been falsely involved in the case. That there is no reliable evidence against him regarding commission of the alleged offence. That it is wrong to allege that any demand of dowry was ever made and the deceased Smt. Parveen Jahan was ever harassed for nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. That in fact, the applicant Jalaluddin, who is husband of deceased, Smt Parveen Jahan was not on good terms with his inlaws as they had misappropriated his ornaments belonging to his wife,. Smt. Parveen Jahan and annexures no. 3 and 4 reports were sent by. Smt. Parveen Jahan to Police for proper action against her mother and father. That due to illtreatment meted to Smt. Parveen Jahan by her parental side ,she committed suicide by taking poison and as such it is not a case of dowry death and false report was lodged against the applicant and as such the applicant deserves bail.

The bail is however opposed by learned A.G.A. He contended that the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the applicant is not true and the actual facts are that consistent demand of Rs.50,000/ was being made in dowry by the applicant from the father of Smt.Parveen Jahan and when the demand was not fulfilled she was consistently harassed and was put to death on 24.3.2007. That the death of Smt. Parveen Jahan had not occurred due to consumption of poison but was caused due to ante mortem injuries found on her head as per post mortem report. That the death of Smt. Parveen Jahan has occurred within a period of seven years from the date of of her marriage and there is sufficient evidence against the

applicant. It was further contended that when this bail application

no.6990(B) of 2007 was pending,suppressing this fact, second bail application was moved being Bail Application No. 2426 of 2008 which was rejected as not pressed on 23.5. 2008. That subsequent thereto again bail application no. 56 of 2009 was moved, suppressing the fact that bail application no. 6990 of 2007 is pending and this was also rejected on 12.1.2009 by Hon''ble Mr Justice A.K. Singh and thus the applicant has tried to suppress the material facts by moving bail application again and again without mentioning that bail application is already pending undisposed of. He further contended that there is over writing on the date of annexure no. 3 and these annexures are nothing but a move to create false defence and as such the applicant does not deserve bail.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties.

In the present case a newly wedded woman Smt. Parveen Jahan has lost her life within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage at the house of her inlaws. As per post mortem report several ante mortem injuries were found on the person of Smt. Parveen Jahan and in the opinion of the doctor the death of Smt. Parveen Jahan had occurred due to head injury. There is allegation that before the death she was illtreated and harassed on account of nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. The applicant is the husband himself. The offence is of serious nature. The applicant has also attempted to suppress the material facts by moving bail application nos. 2426 of 2008 and 56 of 2009 without mentioning that bail application no. 6990 of 2007 is already pending. There is sufficient material against the applicant to connect him with the crime in question. At the stage of consideration of bail application detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case is not required to be undertaken. Broad spectrum of the case is to be seen at this stage apart from the nature and severity of the offence. The offence is of serious nature and sufficient material is available against the applicant.

Having regard to the nature of offence, severity of the punishment, nature of the supporting evidence and broad spectrum of the prosecution case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. The bail is,therefore, refused and the application for bail is rejected accordingly.