The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail of the applicant against whom it was alleged that he set his wife on fire.
A single-judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Krishna Pahal observed that at the stage of adjudicating the bail, the Court cannot delve into examining the quality and quantity of evidence. It can only look at whether the delinquent appears to have committed the crime and he is entitled for bail or not.
Brief Facts:
The present bail application was filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.2815 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. As per the prosecution story, the informant, who is a brother of the deceased, alleged against the applicant that he subjected the deceased to cruelty for the demand of dowry and used to beat her up every now and then.
On 10.12.2018 at about 10:40 p.m., the informant received a phone call stating that her in-laws had set his sister to fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her. The deceased person had stated to all the family members that the applicant and his family members had been beating her for several days. The accused had sprinkled kerosene oil on her, and she was set afire. It is also stated in the FIR that there is a video recording of his sister's statement at Police Chowki Loni.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that PW-1 Nadeem is the informant and has not supported the prosecution story. He has been declared hostile by the public prosecutor and has been cross-examined by him as such. Further, it was stated that there is dying declaration of the deceased person is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act as it has not been recorded as per law. There is also an overwriting in the date of recording of the said dying declaration, and it cannot be said that it was recorded on 10.12.2018 itself.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there was a videographic recording of the statement of the deceased person. He also stated that the prosecution has nowhere stated that the statement recorded by the ASI is a dying declaration but has stated that said statement before ASI and even before treating doctors, namely, Dr. Shahbaz Mansoori and Dr. Alfaraz Mohd tantamount to a dying declaration as they have duly recorded them during their official duty.
Observations of the Court:
The issue for consideration for this Court was - whether the statement of the deceased to the ASI and the treating doctors pass the test of dying declaration or not. From the perusal of both the statements aka "dying declarations," it transpires to the Court that the contents are almost the same, although the ASI has recorded it in vernacular Hindi, and the treating doctors have done so in English. Also, nothing on record suggests that the police or the treating doctors had any animosity with the applicant. In view of this Court, there is a presumption of fair action on the part of police and the treating doctors that must arise here.
Further, at the stage of adjudicating a bail application, the Court declined to delve into the quality or quantity of evidence but to see whether the delinquent appears to have committed the crime and is entitled to bail or not.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application of the accused as being devoid of any merits.
Case Title: Anees vs State of UP
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Krishna Pahal
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23624 of 2020
Advocate for the Applicant: - Syed Ali Imam, Laxmi Shankar
Advocate for the Respondents: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
