High CourtsSingle Bench

Matadin @ Mata Prasad and Another vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 2 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 AHC CK 0051

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C. Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304B, 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 30740 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 433 words

S.C. Agarwal, J.—This is the application for bail on behalf of the applicants Matadin alias Mata Prasad and Sundera Devi involved in Case Crime No. 148 of 2011 under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nawabganj, district Allahabad.

Heard Sri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri A. S. Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. They never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her parents nor ever harassed her on account of demand of dowry. The deceased committed suicide by hanging, as she had only a daughter and no son was born to her.

2.

In paragraph 12 of the bail application, it has been alleged that the deceased and her husband had been quarrelling amongst themselves and both committed suicide by hanging, whereas deceased (wife) died and husband became unconscious.

It was contended that the applicants cannot be held responsible for the same.

3.

Learned A.G.A. as well as Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the story of death by hanging is a cooked up and concocted story and is belied by the post-mortem report wherein four injuries were found on the person of the deceased and cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. The contention is that after throttling the deceased, the scene of crime was made up to appear as if the deceased had committed suicide and this fact falsifies the averment made in paragraph 12 of the bail application noted above.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon the copy of the ration card to prove that they were living separately from the deceased and her husband. Having a separate ration card does not prove that the applicants and the deceased were living separately. Separate addresses have not been given.

5.

The deceased died an unnatural death by homicide in her matrimonial home within 7 years of marriage and before her death, she was harassed by her husband and other members of family on account of demand of dowry. A false story of hanging has been set up by the applicants, whereas the post-mortem report prima facie proves that the deceased was throttled and she did not commit suicide. Considering the submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties and the material available on record, no case for bail is made out.

The application for bail of the accused-applicants Matadin alias Mata Prasad and Sundera Devi is rejected.