Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2571 (ALL)

RAKESH KUMAR @ HANUMAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-07-15

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.-Heard Sri J. S. Audhichya, Advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. 2. Applicant Rakesh Kumar @ Hanuman is the husband of deceased Smt. Mamta, who died within seven years of her marriage, due to smothering in the house of the applicant. 3. An FIR was lodged by Adya Prasad Tiwari, father of the deceased on 4.7.2006 at police station Pawara, District Jaunpur, where a case under section~ 498A, 304-B, IPC and 3/4, D.P. Act was registered at Crime No. 185 of 2006 against Rakesh Kumar @ Hanuman (applicant herein), Hubnarayan and Sas (mother-in-law) of deceased. The allegations made in the FIR are that after the marriage of deceased Smt. Mamta with Rakesh Kumar, she was being harassed by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law making demand of motorcycle, gold chain and Rs. 50,000/- in dowry. It is also alleged that when their demand was not fulfilled, the accused persons committed murder of Smt. Mamta. 4. The first and foremost submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that it is a case of suicide as is evident from inquest report (Annexure-3) and since the applicant alone cannot be held liable for committing suicide by the deceased, hence he is entitled to be released on bail in this case, because he is languishing in jail since 7.6.2006. 5. Next submission made by learned Counsel is that there is delay in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted in this context that father of the deceased, who had lodged the FIR was present at the time of inquest proceeding, but he did not lodge the FIR on that date. 6. Next submission made by learned Counsel is that co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. 7. The bail has been opposed by learned AGA contending that it is not the case of suicide. Rather it is a case of murder, which was committed in the house of applicant, due to smothering and hence, in this heinous anti-social crime, applicant should not be granted bail. 8. I have carefully gone through the post-mortem . report (Annexure-2) and other papers on record. There is prima facie evidence to show that the deceased Smt. Mamta was being tortured by the applicant and her in-laws making the demand of dowry. She died within seven years of her marriage. 8. I have carefully gone through the post-mortem . report (Annexure-2) and other papers on record. There is prima facie evidence to show that the deceased Smt. Mamta was being tortured by the applicant and her in-laws making the demand of dowry. She died within seven years of her marriage. Her death was not natural. The post-mortem report (Annexure-2), shows that there was no mark of ligature on the neck of deceased at the time of postmortem examination, Nose of deceased was badly compressed. Her lips were swollen and lacerated. Other ante-mortem injuries also were found on the person of deceased at the time of post-mortem examination. The doctor has opined that cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem suffocation (smothering). Although as is evident from the inquest proceedings, the dead body of the deceased was found hanging from ceiling fan, but keeping in view the findings recorded in the post-mortem report and having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, in this heinous crime, applicant does not deserve bail. 9. In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous anti-social crime. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others/ 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. 10. Consequently, bail application of the applicant Rakesh Kumar @ Hanuman is hereby rejected. 11. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months applying the provisions of section 309, Cr.P.C. and. avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 12. The S.S.P. Jaunpur is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of the witnesses after obtaining their summons from the Trial Court concerned and it must be ensured that the wit• nesses are produced in the Trial Court fm evidence without causing any delay. 13. The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the Trial Court concerned and S.S.P. Jaunpur for necessary action. Application Rejected.