Ranveer vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Ranveer with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2009 under Sections 304B, 498A, 323 and 307, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut.

The facts, in brief, of this case are that F.I.R. has been lodged by Smt. Kavita on 2.3.2009 at 9.40 p.m. alleging therein that marriage of the deceased was solemnised about seven years prior the alleged incident with the applicant, but the in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the gifts given in the marriage due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry she was subjected to cruelty, in the meantime male child was born, the specific demand of Rs. 20,000 and one motor-cycle was not made by the in-laws, she was expelled by her in-laws from the house. On 12.2.2009 she was beaten, kerosene oil was poured upon her and she was set on fire. Its information was not given to her parents but she was got admitted in the hospital at Sardhana, the condition of the deceased became very serious then she was shifted by her father at Narayani Hospital, Meerut. The deceased was medically examined on 12.2.2009, ultimately she succumbed to her injury, the post-mortem examination was done on 16.3.2009.

Heard Sri. Vivek Kumar Singh and Sri. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State of U.P., Sri. Apul Misra, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that marriage of the deceased was solemnized about seven years prior the alleged incident, the deceased was taken to the hospital by the applicant and his family members but she did not make any allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons, subsequently the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged, wherein the statements of Dr. Sunil Tyagi, Iswar Nursing Home, Binauli was recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in which he stated that the deceased in a injured condition was brought to his nursing home on 12.2.2009 at about 8 p.m. by the applicant, she had stated that she was cooking the food, the dibbi having the kerosene oil fell down consequently she was caught by fire. According to her statements the deceased has sustained injury accidentally. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statements of the deceased Smt. Kavita u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in which she clearly stated that her husband poured the kerosene oil, thereafter she was set on fire. The dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Naib Tahsildar is a tutored one, she made the allegation that the applicant who is jeth of the deceased did marpeet with her, thereafter she was dragged into room where the applicant and co-accused poured the kerosene oil then she was set on fire by her husband. No reliance can be placed on such statements. The applicant was living separately, she was having no concern with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. In F.I.R. itself, the applicant is not named whereas it is mentioned that the alleged offence has been committed by husband of the deceased and her dewar. The naming of the applicant is afterthought.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 7.3.2002, thereafter the demand of dowry was raised for which she was subjected to cruelty. The efforts were made to reconcile the matrimonial relationship ultimately the deceased was killed by way of putting her on fire. In this case the deceased herself lodged the F.I.R. Her statements was recorded by the Investigating Officer and Naib Tahsildar respectively, in her dying declaration, specific allegation has been made against the applicant that she was beaten by the applicant, thereafter the deceased was dragged into a room by the applicant and his brother where kerosene oil was poured by the applicant and co-accused on her person, the co-accused set her on fire. The minor contradiction are only because the deceased herself was seriously injured and she was hoping for her survival. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that it is a case in which F.I.R. has been lodged by the deceased herself, demand of dowry was raised for which she was subjected to cruelty, there is dying declaration of the deceased, in which, the specific allegation has been made against the applicant also and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.