Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2321 (ALL)

Azim v. State of U. P.

2016-07-05

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 2. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant is husband of the deceased but he is not responsible for causing the death of his wife. To the contrary after she got burnt as a result of making an attempt to commit suicide, the applicant rushed her to the hospital and managed full treatment in order to save her life. Attention was drawn to the medical papers with regard to the admission of the deceased in the district hospital, Saharanpur which clearly mentions the name of applicant as the person who brought his wife to hospital. Subsequently she was referred to Delhi and there also the applicant took her to hospital but after struggling for life she eventually succumbed to injuries and died on 15.12.2014. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the dying declaration of the deceased in which the deceased had stated that at the time of occurrence her husband had gone out on his work when because of the family quarrels and taunts made by her mother-in-law she sat herself ablaze and tried to commit suicide. Further submission of the counsel is that even in the light of what has been stated by the deceased in her dying declaration, the applicant can not be held guilty of causing her death. The allegations made in the FIR to the contrary are all false. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 4. 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, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial 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. 5. 5. Let the applicant- Azim involved in Case Crime No. 497 of 2014, u/s 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S.- Qutubsher, District- Saharanpur 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. 6. 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. 7. 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.