Kuldeep S/o Hukum Singh vs State of U.P.

Vedpal, J.—Heard Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State at considerable length and perused the record.

The applicant Kuldeep is involved in case crime no. 296 of 2008 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and D.P.Act, Police Station Pilkhuwa district Ghaziabad.

The prosecution case, in brief, as is revealing from the record, is that accusedapplicant Kuldeep was married with Smt. Jyoti about three years before the date of incident. It is alleged that on 20.5.2008 accusedapplicant Kuldeep along with his mother Smt Jaiwati committed dowry death of Smt. Jyoti due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is alleged that there was consistent demand of a motor cycle in the dowry and when demand was not fulfilled, this incident was committed. The report of the said incident was lodged by Ram Kishore on 21.5.2008 at 5.30 a.m. at the Police Station.

Learned counsel for the applicant assailing the veracity of the above prosecution case and proposed evidence contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and it is not a case of dowry death. That, in fact, the father of the deceased Smt. Jyoti had taken Rs.2, 60, 000/ from the applicant before the incident and the report has been lodged so that money may not be refunded to the applicant. That the allegation of demand of dowry and harassment in relation thereto is absurd and baseless. That, in fact, two days before the date of incident the applicant Kuldeep had gone to fetch milk from other villagers and when he was about to return the heavy rain started, so he reached home a bit late and on that account there was exchange of some hot words between the applicant and his wife Smt. Jyoti and being short tempered and sensitive Smt. Jyoti committed suicide in the night by pouring kerosene oil on her. That no mark of any other injury was found on the person of the deceased and as such the applicant deserves bail.

The bail has been opposed by learned AGA by contending in support of the prosecution case that three years even had not passed from the date of marriage, the incident occurred and admittedly the death of Smt. Jyoti occurred due to burn injuries and there are specific allegations that there was demand of dowry before the death and the deceased was being harassed on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. That in dowry death, it is not material that it is homicidal or suicidal. It was further submitted that there are sufficient materials against the applicant and the applicant is the husband of the deceased and was mainly responsible for proper up keeping and safety of his wife and as such the applicant does not deserve bail.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties.In the present incident a newly wedded woman of about 22 years of age has lost her life. Yong women of common intelligence and character do not set fire to themselves to welcome the embrace of death. Veracity of the prosecution allegation cannot be decided at this stage of disposal of bail application. Admittedly, the death of Smt. Jyoti occurred within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage by burn injuries and there are allegations that there was demand of dowry and harassment of deceased before her death on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. Even assuming that it was a case of suicide, even then it would be a death, which had occurred in unnatural circumstances and 304B I.P.C. is attracted as has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Vs. State of Haryana 1991 S.C. 1226, Ram Badan Vs. State of Bihar (2006) 10 SCC 115, Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar (2007) 11 SCC 205. The applicant is himself the husband of the deceased. At this stage there appears no sufficient ground for bail. Bail is, therefore, liable to be refused.

Accordingly the bail application is rejected.