Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 155 (ALL)

Ajay Kumar and another v. State of U. P.

2012-01-17

S.C.AGARWAL

body2012
S.C. Agarwal, J.;- Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was married with the applicant on 16.3.2010. It was a love marriage and was performed against the wishes of complainant. Subsequently, the complainant took the wife of the applicant to his house and detained her there against her will and the applicant had to file a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 72844 of 2010. On 10.2.2011, on the direction of this Court, wife of the applicant was produced by the applicant. She stated that she was major and aged about 27 years and she was not in illegal detention of her father. She further stated that she had married with the applicant Ajay Kumar and wanted to go alongwith him. This Court vide order dated 10.2.2011, finally disposed of the petition with the observation that the corpus was at liberty and was free to go alongwith the petitioner no. 1- Ajay Kumar with whom she had married. The applicant and his wife sought police protection, which was accordingly granted and S.S.P/D.I.G was directed to do the needful and provide adequate police security to escort the couple to the nearest railway station. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that just after two days on 12.2.2011 at 3 p.m. The complainant alongwith other members of his family came to the house of the applicant and started hurling abuses. The wife of the applicant rushed towards the roof. The complainant and his companions also went towards the roof and to save herself, the wife of the applicant jumped from the roof and sustained injuries. A written report regarding this incident was given by the applicant at P.S. Jatavpura, District- Etah on 12.2.2011 and copy of the application is annexed as S.A-1. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was admitted in District Hospital, Etah on 12.2.2011 at 4.20 p.m. Subsequently, the wife of the applicant died in hospital. The contention is that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was a love marriage and was not an arranged marriage. The applicant had to file Habeas Corpus Writ petition to get his wife released from the custody of her father and on their joint request, police protection was provided. The contention is that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was a love marriage and was not an arranged marriage. The applicant had to file Habeas Corpus Writ petition to get his wife released from the custody of her father and on their joint request, police protection was provided. In these circumstances, it is beyond comprehension that the applicant would ever demand any dowry from the complainant and all the allegations made in this respect are totally false. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the deceased was sent by the High Court with applicant on 10.2.2011 and within two days, she sustained fatal injuries for which the applicant alone is responsible and being the husband of the deceased, he should not be granted bail. It is not a case of arranged marriage. The relations between the applicant and the complainant were not cordial. The story of demand of dowry appears to be a figment of imagination on the part of the complainant as the applicant had to file writ of habeas corpus to get his wife released from the clutches of her father. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Let the applicant Ajay Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 17 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mantola, District- Agra, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him; (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.