Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2287 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-08-07

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 707 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 304B, 307, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aadampur, District J.P. Nagar (Jyotiba Phule Nagar). Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission is that though there is dying declaration of the deceased making allegations that the applicant was ill treating the deceased, demanding the dowry and was picking up quarrel with her and had? also set her ablaze but her dying declaration does not inspire confidence and there are infirmities in the same. First of all, it is pointed out that there was no certificate given by the doctor that at the time of giving her statement, she was in a fit state of mind. It was also emphasized by counsel that admittedly to the prosecution, the brother of the deceased had reached the hospital on 1.11.2011 at 5.00 P.M. and had met his sister. Further submission is that dying declaration was admittedly recorded on 2.11.2011 at 10.40 A.M. Counsel has also tried to discredit the value of the dying declaration on the ground that the first informant brother has also admitted in his statement that when he reached the hospital, he had found that his sister was in an unconscious state of mind. The argument is that with this admission of the first informant it looks very unlikely that the deceased could have given such an elaborate and detailed dying declaration as has been claimed by prosecution to have been given by her. It was next submitted that possibility cannot be ruled out that the first informant somehow managed the alleged dying declaration of the deceased. Apart from this, much emphasis was laid on the fact that even according to the dying declaration, it was admitted by the deceased that when she caught fire, her husband had tried to douse the fire. It was further submitted by counsel that soon after the incident in question, the applicant made full-fledged effort to save the life of his wife and carried her to the hospital. It was further submitted by counsel that soon after the incident in question, the applicant made full-fledged effort to save the life of his wife and carried her to the hospital. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the Annexure-5 which is the document relating to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi in which it is clearly mentioned that she was brought to the hospital by her husband on 31.10.2011 at 7.00 P.M. Submission is that the prosecution allegation that the applicant killed his wife, stands completely rebuffed by the post-incident conduct of the applicant which goes a long way to show and speaks volumes about the intentions of the applicant. Further submission is that if the applicant had any desire to put the life of his wife in danger, why would he have taken her all the way to the hospital at Delhi where she was given full treatment and where after struggling for a sufficient period of time she succumbed to injuries on 6.11.2011 under full medical care and surveillance. Submission is that that post-incident conduct of the applicant and the admission of the deceased in her dying declaration that the applicant had made all the efforts to douse the fire and save her life are sufficient circumstances to indicate that this is a case of suicide and not of murder. It was next submitted that actually because of some family quarrel the deceased herself set her ablaze and ended her life. It was also submitted in the last that the applicant has already spent four years in jail and is languishing behind the bars since 11.11.2011 and there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 5. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. 6. Let the applicant-Sanjay Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 707 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 304B, 307, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aadampur, District J.P. Nagar (Jyotiba Phule Nagar), be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 7. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 8. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ………………..