Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2189 (ALL)

Tejvir v. State of U. P.

2016-06-13

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Devendra Kumar, Advocate for complainant. 2. The applicant-Tejveer has filed this bail application. He alongwith his son Robin and others have been implicated by Informant-Anurag in first information report dated 24.12.2015, being Case Crime No. 0568 of 2015, under Sections 147, 323, 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shamli, District Shamli. 3. Bail Application No. 1350 of 2016 has been rejected by Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 11.05.2016. 4. Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicant, contended that applicant is father-in-law and is residing separately from his son. He has no role in the incident and has been falsely implicated, therefore, deserves to be granted bail. He further contended that death had occurred due to Chinese Manjha, which cut throat of deceased when she was on the roof of house. 5. Applicant has placed on record copy of ration card showing that his son is residing at Kaka Nagar, Shamli while applicant is residing at 175 Karnal Road, Shamli. 6. The first information report contained allegations that marriage between informant's Sister-Shakshi and Robin, son of applicant, was solemnized on 17.02.2011. Thereafter two children were also born. Daughter, Anokhi is about four years old and son, Anmol is about one and half years old. Informant spent huge sum beyond his capacity in marriage but her in-laws were not satisfied with such expenses. They were continuously harassing her for dowry pressurizing to bring Rs. 10 lacs. All the accused were harassing and torturing informant's Sister. On 17.11.2015 informant gave Rs. 4 lacs to applicant-Tejvir, father-in-law of Shakshi, in presence of her husband-Robin and mother-in-law-Smt. Urmila. Informant told them that he has no more capacity of bearing liability of dowry still in-laws of Shakshi were not satisfied. She called upon informant on phone on 22.12.2015 informing that there is a further demand of dowry of Rs. 6 lacs. On 24.12.2015 at around 7.30 AM in-laws of Shakshi informed on telephone, the informant, about her death at the residence of her Nanad-Anshu. Informant requested his Uncle's son- Arun, who was residing at Vikas Nagar, Shamli to went to the house of Anshu (Nanad of Shakshi) and find out truth. 6 lacs. On 24.12.2015 at around 7.30 AM in-laws of Shakshi informed on telephone, the informant, about her death at the residence of her Nanad-Anshu. Informant requested his Uncle's son- Arun, who was residing at Vikas Nagar, Shamli to went to the house of Anshu (Nanad of Shakshi) and find out truth. Arun visited the place and informed informant after some time that body of Shakshi is lying dead in bloodbath at the residence of Anshu (Nanad of deceased). Then informant alongwith his other relatives reached the site of incident whereat Virendra, Kanwarpal and Omveer tried to stop them from entering site of incident and also entered into altercation with them. Somehow informant reached the site and found dead body of her Sister in blood. Accused including applicant have murdered his Sister with sharp edged weapon. Informant has taken his Sister's son in his custody but whereabouts of her daughter are still not known. 7. It is thus evident from first information report that victim was found murdered neither at the residence of applicant, father-in-law or at alleged residence of her husband-Robin, who were residing at Karnal Road, Shamli and Kaka Nagar, Shamli, respectively, as heavily pleaded by learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicant and instead she was found dead at the place where her sister-in-law (Nanad, Anshu) and her husband-Mohit Kumar were residing, i.e., Teachers Colony, Shamli. There is nothing on record to show that applicant was not present at the place where incident took place on 24.12.2015. 8. Further, it is stated that in-laws of victim at around 7.30 AM informed about death of Shakshi at the residence of Anshu (Nanad of deceased). Report has been lodged by brother of Shakshi. Suggestion that victim had died due to Chinese Manjha, apparently appears to be very improbable inasmuch as incident occurred at the end of 3rd week of December, i.e., in peak winter days and at 7.30 AM death was reported. Suggestion that at such an early hour of morning winter victim must have gone to the roof and sustained injuries by Chinese Manjha, apparently is not believable unless cogent evidence comes otherwise. 9. Learned counsel appearing for informant has pointed out that body was found not on roof but in the room where blood stains were found on walls and it shows that with a sharp edged weapon throat of victim was cut. 10. 9. Learned counsel appearing for informant has pointed out that body was found not on roof but in the room where blood stains were found on walls and it shows that with a sharp edged weapon throat of victim was cut. 10. Sri Mishra tried to explain that after victim sustained injuries at roof, she was brought down in Aangan and while bringing her downstairs, oozing blood on staircase has been noticed by police. Sri Mishra has not said anything as to how victim and his husband were present at the residence of Anshu where incident took place. Entire stress is to show that applicant and his son were residing separately but incident has occurred at a third place and regarding presence of accused at third place nothing has been said. Silence and non disclosure of correct facts by applicant justify an adverse inference against applicant. 11. Moreover, as already said victim has been found in the house of Anshu, i.e., her Nanad, who is said to have been residing at Teachers Colony, Shamli and with regard to this fact no explanation has been given by applicant as to how victim was present at the place of residence of her Nanad though as per applicant, he is residing at 175 Karnal Road, Shamli and his son is residing at Kaka Nagar, Shamli. Therefore, case set up by applicant does not inspire confidence and since no reason has been given for pleading certain facts, which are self contradictory, I find no reason but to believe prima facie involvement of applicant in crime in question. 12. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case where applicant should be enlarged on bail. 13. The bail application stands dismissed.