Satish Kumar vs State of U.P.

M. L. Singhal, J.—I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri P.N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the informant and learned AGA.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that on the FIR lodged by the father, of the accused one day earlier of filing of FIR by the father of the complainant, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate went on the spot and in his presence the dead body of the deceased was found inside the room hanging with the fan. The room was locked from inside. Further, the father and brother of the deceased were also present at the time when the dead body was cremated. No injury except finger abrasion on the thigh of the deceased had been found and as such the learned Counsel argued that the case of the prosecution that the accused committed murder of the deceased on account of demand of dowry is not believable. In the post mortem report the cause of death is axphyxia due to hanging.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, the applicant, Satish Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 62/97 under Sections 498A, 304B of the IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maduadin District Varanasi shall be admitted on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.