Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2902 (ALL)

Ramman Lal v. State Of U. P.

2009-08-20

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT: Vijay Kumar Verma,J. AGA has filed counter affidavit, whereas the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, which are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.P. Srivastava, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant and AGA for the State. 3. The Applicant Ramman Lal is devar of the deceased Smt. Surja Devi, who died within a period of seven years of her marriage due to burn injuries. An FIR was lodged by her brother Mahaveer on 06.06.2008 at P.S. Fatehganj (west), Bareilly, where a case at crime No. 443 of 2008, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, was registered against (1) Deendayal, (2) Sohan Lal @ Udaie (3)Smt. Imarti Devi, (4) Ramman Lal (applicant herein), (5) Shomwati and (6) Heera Kali. The allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that the accused persons were causing harassment to the deceased making demand of dowry and when their demand was not fulfilled, they set her on fire, due to which she was seriously injured. Further case of the prosecution is that due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, she died in the hospital during treatment and thereafter the case was converted under section 304-B IPC also. 4. Certain arguments on merit have been made by learned counsel for the applicant, but his main submission is that being devar of the deceased, the applicant was not going to be benefitted by the demand of dowry and he has been falsely roped in this case. 5. Next submission made by learned counsel is that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.04.2009 and 9.2.2009 passed in Bail Application No. 8929 of 2009 and 3635 of 2009 respectively and hence on the ground of principle of parity, the applicant also is entitled to be released on bail, because in the dying declaration, role of setting the deceased on fire was attributed to the father-in-law and mother-in-law also along with applicant Ramman Lal. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the applicant was living separately from the deceased and her husband and he had no concern with their family. 7. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the applicant was living separately from the deceased and her husband and he had no concern with their family. 7. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA contending that in the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Surja Devi, specific role of setting her on fire by pouring kerosene oil is attributed to the applicant also, and hence in this heinous crime of committing murder and demand of dowry, the applicant should not be granted bail. 8. on the matter of granting bail on the basis of the principle of parity, it is submitted by AGA that parity cannot be the sole ground for bail. 9. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record as well as the orders dated 10.04.2009 and 9.2.2009 passed by another Bench of this Court in Bail Application Nos. 8929 of 2009 and 3635 of 2009 respectively, whereby the co-accused Mohan Lal (father-in-law of the deceased) and Smt. Imarti Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased) have been granted bail. It appears that at the time of hearing of those bail applications, the dying declaration of the deceased was not brought to the notice of the Bench, as there is no mention in both the orders about the dying declaration. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant cannot be granted bail on the ground of parity, because dying declaration of deceased Smt. Surja Devi was not considered by the Bench, while granting bail to the co-accused Mohan Lal and Smt. Imarti Devi. Otherwise also, parity is not the sole ground for bail, as held by this Court in Shahnawaz @ Shanu Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (66) ACC 189. 10. The dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Surja Devi was recorded by the magistrate on 07.06.2008, Annexure-5 ( paper no. 19) of the bail application is the copy of dying declaration, wherein specific role of pouring kerosene oil and setting the deceased on fire has been attributed to the applicant Ramman Lal along with Smt. Imarti Devi and Mohan Lal. Therefore, keeping in view the dying declaration of the deceased, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, in this heinous crime of committing murder of an innocent lady without any lawful excuse, the applicant does not deserve bail. 11. Therefore, keeping in view the dying declaration of the deceased, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, in this heinous crime of committing murder of an innocent lady without any lawful excuse, the applicant does not deserve bail. 11. 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 vs. Union of India and others 2008(68) ACC 115, 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. 12. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 13. 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. 14. S.S.P. Bareilly 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 session trial arising out of case crime No. 443 of 2008 of PS Fatehganj (West), Bareilly without causing any delay. 15. The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned and S.S.P. Bareilly for necessary action. 16. Let a copy of this order be supplied by the office to the Government Advocate also, who may take suitable action to get the bail of co-accused Mohan Lal and Smt. Imarti Devi cancelled, as at the time of hearing on the bail applications in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8929 of 2009 and 3635 of 2009, the dying declaration of deceased Smt. Surja Devi was not brought on record.