Shishupal vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Shishupal is in judicial custody in FIR No.396 of 2022, under Sections 302, 304-B IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the deceased and the applicant were married in the year 2018, but, the deceased was tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. The applicant would beat her up and finally on 07.10.2022, the informant was told that his daughter has been killed by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence in the matter; when the door of the room was opened, the applicant and the deceased both were lying on the ground; their mobiles were broken. It is argued that, perhaps, some outsider had entered into the house and killed the wife of the applicant. He would also submit that PW8, Chaman, who has been examined at trial, in Para 6 of her statement, has stated that there is no injury on the deceased, whereas, the applicant was bleeding from his neck.

Learned State Counsel would submit that it is the applicant, who had killed his wife; PW7, the landlord, has confirmed it.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

The witnesses have supported the prosecution case at trial. What is significant in this case is that the deceased was found dead in a room, which was bolted from inside. There was a small child and the applicant inside the room. According to the post-mortem report, it is a case of manual strangulation. If the door was bolted from inside, how could some outsider enter into the house? How the deceased was killed? Who strangulated her? Is it not a fact within the special knowledge of the applicant? If it is so, is it not obligatory for the applicant to explain the circumstances under which the deceased died?

Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.