Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2887 (ALL)

NAUSHAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-08-19

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT VIJAY KUMAR. VERMA, J. Prayer for bail in this bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of the applicant Naushad, son of Fida Husain @ Nanhey, in Case Crime No. 200 of 2007 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Colonelganj, District Kanpur Nagar. 2. The applicant is the husband of deceased Smt. Aysha, who died just after six months from her marriage (Nikah), due to bum injuries in the house of the applicant. Her father Ishrat Ali lodged an FIR on 19.10.2007 at P.S. Colonelganj, Kanpur Nagar, where a case under sections 498-A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at Case Crime No. 200 of 2007, against Naushad Ahmad (applicant-herein). Fida Husain @ Nanhey, Rubi, Juli, Munni, Guddu and Irfan. The allegations made in the FIR (Annexure-I), in brief, are that Nikah of Smt. Aysha had taken place with Naushad Ahmad on 14.4.2007 and dowry as per-capacity was given by her father, but accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry and they began to cause harassment to Smt. Aysha making demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a motorcycle in dowry. It is alleged that after a month from marriage, Smt. A ysha was ousted by her-in-laws from their house and then complainant paid Rs. 5000/- to her in-laws and sent her to sasural, but the accused persons again began to cause harassment making demand of dowry. Further case of the prosecution is that Smt. Aysha was carried by her husband and other accused persons on 18.10.2007 at about 11:00 p.m. to her sasural and in the next morning she was set on fire by the accused persons, due to which she sustained serious bum injuries. On getting information, the complainant went to the sasural of his daughter and from there he went to D.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, where Smt. Aysha was admitted. Due to bum injuries sustained by Smt. Aysha, she died in the hospital on 19.10.2007 and hence the case was converted under section 304-B IPC. 3. I have heard lengthy arguments of Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun. Advocate, appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State. 4. Due to bum injuries sustained by Smt. Aysha, she died in the hospital on 19.10.2007 and hence the case was converted under section 304-B IPC. 3. I have heard lengthy arguments of Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun. Advocate, appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State. 4. The first and foremost submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that the deceased was high tempered lady, who was not adjusting herself in her sasural and she committed suicide by setting her on fire, and hence the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, because he was not responsible for committing the suicide by the deceased. 5. Next submission made by learned Counsel is that after sustaining bum injuries by the deceased, she was carried by the applicant to U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, where she was admitted by him, which shows that deceased was not burnt by the accused persons and she had committed suicide. 6. It was also submitted by learned Counsel that information regarding sustaining bum injuries by the deceased was given to the complainant, on which he along with his family members came to applicant's house, but they did not make any complaint at that time and thereafter with mala fide intention, FIR was lodged by the complainant with false and concocted allegations about making demand of dowry. 7. It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that due to serious bum injuries, the deceased was not able to speak and she did not make any dying declaration before any person. 8. It was also submitted by learned Counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.10.2007, and hence on the basis of long incarceration 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. 9. The bail application was vehemently opposed by learned AGA contending that just after six months and five days the deceased died due to bum injuries in the house of applicant and since there is sufficient evidence in the case diary to show that she was being harassed by' her husband and other in-laws making demand of Rs. 20,000/- for business and a motor cycle in dowry, hence in this heinous anti-social crime, the applicant should not be released on bail. 10. 20,000/- for business and a motor cycle in dowry, hence in this heinous anti-social crime, the applicant should not be released on bail. 10. It was also submitted by learned AGA that when the deceased was ousted by the accused persons from their house, her father had given Rs. 5,000/- to her in-laws, but they again began to cause her harassment making demand of dowry. It was further submitted in this context by learned AGA that the applicant and other accused had carried the deceased from her mayka on 18.10.2007 at about 10:11 p.m. and in the next morning, they set her on fire. 11. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record. There is prima facie evidence to show that the applicant and other accused persons were causing harassment of deceased Smt. Aysha making demand of Rs. 20,000/- and motor cycle in dowry. The deceased died just after six months from her marriage due to bum injuries sustained by her in the house of applicant. There is evidence in the case diary to show that the applicant Naushad and other accused persons had carried the deceased from her mayka on 18.10.2007 at about 10:00 p.m. and in the next morning, the deceased sustained severe bum injuries, due to which she died in the hospital during treatment. Therefore having regard to all these facts, but without expressing any opinion on merit, the applicant in this heinous anti-social crime, does not deserve bail. 12. In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be released on bail. 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. 13. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 14. The Trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused persons within a period of six months making sincere efforts and applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. 15. 13. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 14. The Trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused persons within a period of six months making sincere efforts and applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. 15. S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of the witnesses after obtaining their summons from the Court concerned and it must be ensured that witnesses are produced in aforesaid case without causing any delay. 16. The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the Trial Court concerned and S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar for necessary action.