Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 697 (ALL)

Devendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-03-06

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Amar Singh Chauhan,J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicant, Devendra Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 149 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Iglas, District Aligarh, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that an FIR has been lodged on 25.3.2016 with the allegation that the marriage of the daughters namely Rajesh and Vimlesh were solemnized with the applicant and Virendra son of Prem Prakash on 20.5.2009 and according to the capacity sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but the husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the said dowry and demanded rupees five lacs as additional dowry. On non-fulfilment of the said dowry, they were tortured mentally and physically to the daughters of the informant and intended to their demand, therefore, in compelling circumstances a case was registered at Mathura against the dowry greedy persons. The daughters of the informant were also filed a case for maintenance and domestic violence in the court of Mathura in which in-laws were taken away the daughters of the informant after compromise. On the said date at about 10: 30 AM son in law of the informant made a call on the mobile of informant and stated that in-laws has burned Vimlesh and she is admitted in Medical College Hospital, Aligarh. On the said information, informant along with other villagers went to the Medical College Hospital, Aligarh and doctor told that she has sustained 95% burn injury. During treatment a dying declaration was recorded and after dying declaration, victim succumbed to burn injury. It is further submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has not committed any type of occurrence/incident but being husband he has been falsely implicated in the present case because the deceased has specifically stated in her dying declaration that she was set ablaze by her Jeth. It is also submitted that the applicant was not available on the very place of occurrence. Co-accused Prem Prakash, father-in-law and Smt. Kamlesh, mother-in-law have already granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 30.9.2016 and 25.10.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 32965 and 35104 of 2016 respectively. It is also submitted that the applicant was not available on the very place of occurrence. Co-accused Prem Prakash, father-in-law and Smt. Kamlesh, mother-in-law have already granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 30.9.2016 and 25.10.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 32965 and 35104 of 2016 respectively. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the bail inter alia on the ground that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by raising a demand of rupees five lacs as dowry. As per postmortem report, cause of death due to shock as a result of antemortem burn injury. Therefore, the death was caused otherwise than in normal circumstances by 95% burning and the applicant is husband who was watching the occurrence as he made a call to the informant just after the occurrence. It is further contended that before the occurrence some cases were pending against the applicant in which he made compromise and after fetching the deceased from Maika, occurrence took place. It has also come in dying declaration that applicant also used to quarrel with the deceased. Moreover, the husband is responsible for security and welfare of his wife in which he has been failed and could not evade the responsibility rest on him. Having considered the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence, submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.