Shamshad vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, advocate appearing for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, counsel for the complainant and A.G.A. for the State.

The applicant Shamshad is the husband of deceased Smt. Aisha Praveen who died within a period of seven years of her marriage due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Her father Haji Ayub lodged an F.I.R. On 9.9.2007 at P.S. Purqazi, district Muzaffarnagar where a case u/s 304B, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act, was registered at Case Crime No. 505 of 2007, against Shamshad (applicant herein) Akbar, Jareefan, Munna, Naseema, Munni and Gulfam. The allegation made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that the accused persons were causing harassment of the deceased making demand of Rs. 50,000 and Hero Honda Motor Cycle in dowry and when their demand was not fulfilled, they committed her murder.

The first and foremost submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that suicide was committed by the deceased, as she was suffering from depression and hypertension.

Next submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that no specific role of the applicant has been assigned in the F.I.R. and in statements of the witnesses and general role of making demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused persons. It is also submitted in this context that both the parties are poor persons and allegation about making demand of Rs. 50,000 and Hero Honda Motor Cycle is false and concocted.

It is also submitted by learned Counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.2.2008 and hence on the basis of long detention period in jail, he is entitled to be released on bail, because due to delay in trial his Fundamental Right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.

The bail application has been opposed by learned Counsel for the complainant and A.G.A. contending that murder of the deceased was committed by strangulation and it is not a case of suicide and since the murder of the deceased was committed in the house of applicant and false explanation has been furnished by him in para 13 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application, hence on this ground alone, the bail application of the applicant should be discarded, because he has come with false plea for seeking bail in a murder case.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material on record. The post-mortem report (Annexure-2) shows that the deceased had died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation and not by hanging. The murder of deceased has been committed in the house of the applicant. False plea of committing suicide by deceased has been taken in bail application. Therefore, having regard to all these facts, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, in this heinous crime the applicant does not deserve bail.

In my considered opinion, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail on the basis of the period of detention in jail also. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. LXIII (2008) ACC 115: 2008 (3) ACR 3216 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.

The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicants and other accused within a period of six months applying the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar also is directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of witnesses after obtaining their summons from the Court concerned and it must be ensured that all the witnesses are produced for evidence in the Session Trial arising out of Case Crime No. 505 of 2007, without causing any delay.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned and S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar for necessary action.