Vibhaw Lal Srivastava vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Vibhaw Lal Srivastava with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D. P. Act, P.S. Karma district Sonbhadra.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Rita Devi on 11.9.2006 at 8.30 p.m. against the applicant and two other co-accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the co-accused Sunil Kumar Srivastava, son of the applicant, on 20.2.2006. The applicant and other co-accused persons were demanding a golden chain, T.V. and Rs. 20,000 as dowry and to fulfill the same, they were subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The deceased has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons thereafter the cremation of the dead body has been done.

Heard Sri A.P. Singh, and A. K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. He was having no concern with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison, its information was given to the first informant and in her presence the cremation of the dead body was done. The deceased committed suicide because she was not satisfied with her husband who was an accused in a case punishable u/s 302, I.P.C., P. S. Ali Nagar district Chandauli. The allegations in respect of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty are absolutely false and baseless. The applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill will of the first informant.

In reply of the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the death of the deceased has occurred within seven months of her marriage ; the death was unnatural even then neither any information was given by the applicant to the police station concerned nor to the first informant and her family members and in hot haste the cremation of the dead body was done. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. He is more responsible person as he is living in the same house. There was demand of dowry and to fulfill the same, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. In such a situation the applicant is not entitled for bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.