Vinod Kumar (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by applicant Vinod Kumar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 295 of 2006, under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Agra.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Bhikha Ram the father of the deceased Smt Renu at P.S. Sadar Bazar, Agra on 9.5.2006 at 12.50 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4.5.2006. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant, co-accused Smt Munni Devi the wife of the applicant and co-accused Sanjay the son of the applicant alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Jitendra son of the applicant in the month of February, 2005. The first informant bore the expenses of Rs. 2.50 lac, but the applicant and other co-accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and since the date of marriage they were passing comments and demanded some more dowry and they have made an specific demand of Rs. 50,000/- and to fulfill the demand of dowry they were subjecting the deceased to cruelty. Its complaint was made by the deceased to the first informant. The first informant tried to persuade the applicant and other co-accused persons, but the applicant and other co-accused persons were not satisfied and in the night of 4.5.2006 the deceased was set on fire after pouring the petrol inside a room and the room was bolted from out side. On the shrieks of the deceased the people of the locality saw the incident and its information was received by the first informant, then the first informant went to the house of the applicant and. tried to know about the death of the deceased, but no satisfactory reply was given by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased was admitted in Kamla Hospital where her condition was very serious, but subsequently, she died in other hospital and her inquest report was prepared on 11.5.2006, thereafter, post mortem examination was conducted. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has received superficial to deep burn injuries and cause of death was due to septicemia as a result of ante mortem injuries.

Heard Smt Kamini Pandey and Sri Ajai Dubey learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P. and Sri D.N. Wali Learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that:

(i) The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The F.l.R. of this case is too much delayed. It was lodged on 9.5.2006 at 12.50 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4.5.2006. The proper information was given to the first informant. On that information the first informant and his other family members came in the hospital where the deceased was admitted by the applicant in injured condition.

(ii) In the present case the F.l.R. has not been lodged against the husband of the deceased. There was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty. The allegation of such natures is absolutely false and baseless.

(iii) The deceased has received burn injuries accidentally. She was taken to the hospital by the applicant and thereafter, she was taken to S.N. Medical College and Hospital, Agra by the applicant where she was medically examined on 4.5.2006 at 10.15 p.m.

(iv) The applicant made his efforts to save the life of the deceased, but unfortunately she died. The deceased was admitted in S.N. Medical College and Hospital, Agra. On the advice of the doctors she was shifted to Mangala Hospital, where her condition could not be improved, thereafter, she was shifted to Kamayani Hospital on 10.5.2006 where she died on 11.5.2006. The applicant has expended a huge amount on the treatment of the deceased. According to statement of the first informant recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. the husband of the deceased was innocent, but the applicant, his wife and his younger son were demanding dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty.

(v) There is no dying declaration of the deceased. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he is old man aged about 65 years. He was having no concern with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The applicant is innocent. The first informant due to some ulterior motive has falsely implicated the applicant.

In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant submit that the death of the deceased has taken place within 14 months after her marriage. The cause of death is unnatural. It has not been explained by the applicant that in what manner the deceased sustained burn injuries. In the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the first informant Bhikharam the father of the deceased stated that he reached in Mangala Hospital and has talked to the deceased, she stated that the applicant and his wife co-accused Munni Devi sprinkled petrol over her cloths and co-accused Sanjay ablazed her and thereafter the room was closed and bolted from outside. The similar statements were given by Smt Basdevi the wife of the first informant Bhikharam and Vijay Singh the brother-in-law of Bhikharam. The witness Vijay Singh further stated that on 4.5.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. Jitendra Singh the husband of the deceased came to him in embarrass position and it was revealed by him that his parents have made a quarrel in the house. During investigation the statement of the Gangaram neighbour of the applicant was interrogated by the I.O., u/s 161 Cr. P.C. he stated that on 4.5.2006 at about 9.00 p.m. his son Monu came from the house of the applicant and stated that there is a lot of commotion in the house of the applicant, then witness Gangaram and his wife Smt Maya Devi saw the smock coming out from the house of the applicant. Main door of the house of the applicant was locked from inside which was got opened after a lot of persuasion and after entering inside the house they found the deceased lying on a cot in ablaze condition. At that time the applicant and other co-accused Munni Devi and Sanjay were present there. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the hospital. The similar statement has been given by witness Bhoori Singh. There was demand of dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty to fulfill the demand of dowry and the applicant is not old man aged about 65 years. He is hale and hearty aged about 50 years. The cause of death is unnatural, which has not been explained by the applicant and the applicant was living in the same house and he was not living separately; therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

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

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

From the perusal of this bail application it appears that the contents of the F.I.R. of this case annexed as Annexure-I (typed copy) to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application is not correct and is incomplete, because according to annexed typed copy of the F.I.R. the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant whereas the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Jitendra the son of the applicant and in paragraph 9 of the affidavit it has been mentioned also that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The averments of this paragraph are contrary to the contents of the annexed F.I.R. The F.I.R. is very important document for the disposal of the bail application, with a great difficulty the correct facts could be ascertained in the present case and some other cases also it has been found that correct F.I.Rs. are not annexed with the bail applications, therefore, it is directed that any bail application, without having the certified copy of the F.I.R. or its eligible photostat copy, shall not be entertained by the registry.

The Registrar General shall issue necessary directions in this regard forthwith. It is further directed that the copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar General of this Court for compliance of the above direction.