Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2521 (ALL)

Rashid Ali v. State of U. P.

2016-07-20

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the wife of the applicant was actually a mentally sick person suffering with mental abnormality from before the marriage. When she came to the applicant's house after marriage applicant came to know about her ailment and gave her full fledged treatment for the same. Counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the Annexures No.8 and 9 which are to be found on page 61 to 74 of this application. It has been submitted that the aforesaid Annexures are the medical prescriptions of the deceased and are sufficient to reveal that she was given treatment at super speciality hospital. The counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to the medical prescription dated 21.5.2015 in which the complaint of headache with history of head injury was noted by the doctor. The medical prescription dated 10.8.2015 indicated the emotional distress of the deceased. The medical prescription dated 12.10.2015 again indicated disturbed state of mind with abnormality noted by the doctor. Similarly the other prescriptions dated 12.10.2015 and 20.12.2015 also indicated same abnormality. The medical prescription dated 16.1.2016 clearly mentions the mental abnormality and the same has been noted by the doctor. It has been submitted that the deceased was also pregnant during the days when she died and as is so well known that in such period of pregnancy the emotional distress and the general feeling of well being deteriorates, therefore the ailment of mental distress with which she already suffered had actually aggravated with her pregnancy and she used to go into long fits of extreme emotional breakdowns and disturbance. It was hoped that the adequate treatment shall bring her requisite relief and she would become better and healthy but before she could be cured she got disappointed with her life and under the extreme mental stress committed suicide. It has been submitted that the applicant had never indulged in any kind of demand of dowry and had never ill treated her. It has been submitted that the applicant had never indulged in any kind of demand of dowry and had never ill treated her. Contention is that the timely medical treatment which was provided to his wife and the sincerity with which the applicant managed the mental ailment of his wife is sufficient to indicate that the allegations of ill treating the deceased are absurd and are wholly incompatible with the conduct of the applicant. It is so apparent that the incriminating allegations to the contrary have been concocted by parental side just to black mail the applicant so that he may cough up the money. It has been submitted that the conduct of applicant as is demonstrable from continuous medical prescriptions which were given to her with regard to the mental ailment, which appears to have owed its genesis probably to some head injury incurred before her marriage, is sufficient to indicate that it is not a case of 'dowry death' and prima facie a case for bail in applicants' favour is made out. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.2.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, 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, 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. 6. 6. Let the applicant- Rashid Ali, involved in Case Crime No.100 of 2016 u/s 304B, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Sindhauli District Shahjahanpur 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.