Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3234 (ALL)

Manjoor v. State of U. P.

2016-09-21

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 463 of 2015 u/ss 304B, 498A and 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Budhana District- Muzaffarnagar . 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the record. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and is an old man and was actually not present at the time of incident in the house. Further submission is that there are no specific allegations against the applicant and, therefore, the case of the applicant should be deemed to be distinguishable from the case of the husband, who alone may be presumed to be interested in the demand of additional dowry. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Smt. Gulfana, who is another daughter-in-law and was present in the house at the time of the incident. It has been narrated by witness Smt. Gulfana that after the marriage of the deceased the applicant and other family members were not satisfied with the dowry that was given and additional demands were extended. Ill-treatment was also meted out to the deceased and when the same situation continued a motorcycle was given by the father of the deceased again but that did not put an end to the cruel treatment to which the deceased was subjected. It was submitted that the deceased as well as this witness Smt.Gulfana, both were often beaten up. It has been specifically stated by this witness that the applicant Manjoor, and other co-accused Tahir, Nasir, Salim , sister-in-law Rukhsana and her husband used to demand additional dowry and also used to beat them. It has been specifically stated by this witness that on the day of occurrence all the aforesaid accused persons had badly beaten up the deceased, as a result of which, the child which she was carrying in her womb, died and the pregnancy got aborted and deceased gave birth to a still child. It has been specifically stated by this witness that on the day of occurrence all the aforesaid accused persons had badly beaten up the deceased, as a result of which, the child which she was carrying in her womb, died and the pregnancy got aborted and deceased gave birth to a still child. It has been further stated by this witness that the aforesaid dead child was buried by the accused persons and when the deceased regained her conscious she asked about the child on which the accused persons misbehaved and had again beaten her, as a result of which, she died. It has been emphasized by the learned AGA that the dead body of the deceased was buried with the purpose of destroying the evidence and it was only on the application of the father of the deceased that the dead body of the deceased had to be exhumed by the police and subjected to post mortem examination. It has been further emphasized by the learned AGA that the finding of the post mortem examination report would indicate that the deceased had died as result of homicidal death and her parietal bone was found fractured and some other injuries were also found on the body of the deceased. Next submission is that this is a case in which the extreme cruelty was meted out upon the deceased by the accused persons, as a result of which, both the child and mother have lost their lives. Further submission is that the post mortem report proves the murder of the deceased and the version given by this witness does not leave any doubt that the applicant is complicit in the crime. After committing murder in the house, none of the inmates furnished information to the police, which the law required them to do. To the contrary as the accomplices in the crime, the cadaver was carried and buried under the ground to give it a complexion of natural death. All this exercise can not be the exclusive conduct of the husband alone or for that matter the exclusive conduct of any solitary accused unaided by others. No liberal view in the matter is, therefore, called for. 5. All this exercise can not be the exclusive conduct of the husband alone or for that matter the exclusive conduct of any solitary accused unaided by others. No liberal view in the matter is, therefore, called for. 5. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 6. 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.