Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2153 (ALL)

Manish Singh v. State of U. P.

2011-09-14

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2011
Ravindra Singh, J.;- Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the case diary. 2. This bail application has been moved by the applicant Manish Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 154 of 2010 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpuri. 3. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Uday Pratap Singh Rathore on 17.2.2010 at 8.30 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred from 8.2.2010 to 17.2.2010. The applicant and other co-accused persons are named in the FIR. The applicant is Dewar of the deceased. It is alleged that marriage of the deceased Smt. Vandana @ Shikha was solemnized with the co-accused Munenda Singh on 31.5.2005. After six days of her marriage the in-laws of the deceased demanding the money for constructing the house. The first informant was not in a position to pay the money, it was told by the deceased to her in-laws. Thereafter the deceased gave birth to a female child, then her in-laws became too much annoyed and they asked the deceased to say her father for depositing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of newly born female child as a fixed deposit. To fulfil the aforesaid demand of dowry the deceased was subjected to cruelty. On 2.2.2010 the wife of the first informant namely Sushila Devi, his daughter Anju Singh and Priti Singh @ Laki and his son Varun Singh had gone to the house of deceased to attend the Tilak ceremony because on 6.2.2010 the marriage of the applicant was scheduled. The in-laws of the deceased demanding the ornaments from the deceased from the marriage of the applicant, it was denied by the deceased then the deceased became victim of atrocities committed by her in-laws. The marriage party of the applicant returned on 7.2.2010, the deceased was ready to go to Delhi along with her husband on 8.2.2010. Her husband and Varun had gone out of the house then Smt. Sudha Singh Jethani of the deceased, Smt. Radha and Anju Nanad of the deceased did marpeet, then the deceased made hue and cry for saving her life. Her husband and Varun had gone out of the house then Smt. Sudha Singh Jethani of the deceased, Smt. Radha and Anju Nanad of the deceased did marpeet, then the deceased made hue and cry for saving her life. In the meantime the co-accused Mahavir Singh, the father-in-law of the deceased and Mahendra Pal Singh, Jeth of the deceased and Smt. Kanti Devi, the mother-in-law of the deceased exhorted to kill the deceased, then the deceased was over powered by her Jethani and Nanad Anju, the kerosene oil was poured by Nanad Radha and ignition was made by the applicant. The deceased was caught by fire, in the mean time Munendra, the husband of the deceased, Varun Singh son of the first informant and Anju Singh daughter of the first informant came there, they were not permitted to go near the deceased, they were intercepted at the door, The fire was extinguished then she was taken by a tractor to a private doctor of the Bewar, then she was taken to district hospital, Mainpuri by the husband of the deceased on 9.2.2010, she was referred to medical college, Saifai where her dying declaration was recorded by S.D.M. Saifai on 13.2.2010, then she was referred to Puspanjali Hospital, Agra and from where she was referred to Safadarjang hospital, Delhi but she could not be taken to the Safdarjang hospital, Delhi on account of the night but she was taken to IIMT hospital, lawyers colony, Agra where she died during treatment on 15.2.2010 at about 9.30 A.M., then the information was given to the police station concerned by the hospital, on that information the inquest report was prepared, thereafter post mortem examination was done and the dead body was handed to husband of the deceased. In IIMT hospital also the Addl. City Magistrate-I recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 8.2.2010 at about 6.00 P.M. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained burn injuries, she died due to septicaemia as a result of ante mortem burn injury. In IIMT hospital also the Addl. City Magistrate-I recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 8.2.2010 at about 6.00 P.M. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had sustained burn injuries, she died due to septicaemia as a result of ante mortem burn injury. According to the first dying declaration the kerosene was poured upon her by the applicant and she was sat on fire by the applicant, thereafter her husband came there and tried to extinguish the fire in which his hands were burnt, but according to her second dying declaration also the applicant poured the kerosene oil upon the deceased and thereafter ignition was made by the applicant by match box. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri who rejected the same on 18.8.2010. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is Dewar of the deceased, he was having no concerned with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The alleged occurrence had taken place on the next day of the applicant's marriage. It was highly unnatural that on the next day of the marriage, the applicant may participate in commission of the alleged offence. It is a case in which the deceased was caught by fire accidentally, the attempts were made by her husband to save the life. The husband of the deceased had also sustained burn injuries. The proper treatment was given to the deceased, she was taken to the different hospitals but unfortunately she succumbed to her injuries. Both the dying declaration was tutored and there is no mental fitness certificate of the deceased issued by the doctor before recording the dying declaration. It is also surprising that no FIR has been lodged by the first informant immediately after the alleged incident but the FIR has been lodged after post mortem examination of the deceased. The FIR itself is very clear that the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her husband. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, but he has been falsely implicated due to ill will of the first informant. The first informant is Sub Inspector, he has mis-used his power and position in lodging the FIR, the entire family of the applicant has been made accused. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, but he has been falsely implicated due to ill will of the first informant. The first informant is Sub Inspector, he has mis-used his power and position in lodging the FIR, the entire family of the applicant has been made accused. Even according to the FIR there was no demand of dowry demand of money was made for constructing the house which does not come in the preview of the dowry. The applicant was living separately along with his father and mother, he was having no concerned with the family affairs of the deceased. The co-accused Smt. Kanti Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased has been released on bail by the High Court on 23.3.2010, therefore, he may be released on bail. 5. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 31.5.2005, the applicant is Dewar of the deceased. The kerosene was poured upon the deceased, thereafter she was sat on fire. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the magistrate concerned, in both the dying declarations she has made the specific allegation against the applicant that applicant poured the kerosene upon the deceased and ignition was made by the applicant by the match box. The deceased has sustained burn injury. In such circumstances, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that applicant is Dewar of the deceased, the dying declarations of the deceased have been recorded, in both the dying declarations the specific allegation has been made against the applicant that he poured the kerosene upon the deceased, thereafter she was sat on fire by the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. 7. Accordingly this application is rejected.