Allahabad High Court
Noor Mohammad vs State Of U.P. on 9 November, 2011
Bench: Vinay Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26580 of 2009
Petitioner :- Noor Mohammad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Irfan V.Huda
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Km. Satya Srivastava
Hon'ble Vinay Kumar Mathur,J.
The applicant Noor Mohammad is involved in Case Crime No. 314 of 2009, under Sections 147,326,504,506,304 and 384 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, district- Jaunpur.
I have heard Sri Irfan U. Huda, learned counsel for the applicant and leaned AGA representing the State and have perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind and used to visit 'Mazars' regularly. In the alleged incident initially, it has been alleged that kerosene oil was poured by the applicant and he also lit the match stick, however this has not been corroborated by the statement of deceased Gulista Bano in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The mother of the deceased has falsely implicated the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 2.4.2009. There is no allegation of demand of dowry etc. against the applicant. The case is undeer Section 304 IPC and 'Idgah' is a crowded place where alleged incident cannot take place.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and has contended that the applicant was the husband of the deceased. Some matrimonial cases were pending between them. It has come in the evidence that thumb impressions and signatures of the deceased were forcibly obtained in the Idgah by the applicant and other co-accused and the applicant in fact poured kerosene oil and set the deceased on fire. In the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has stated that her husband poured kerosene oil on her and lit the match stick causing fire. Witnesses have also given identical statements. However, in the statement of the deceased under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the deceased has stated that a cloth was inserted in her mouth and co-accused Mehrab and Sohrab forced her to put her thumb impressions and signatures on blank papers and thereafter co-accused Naseem poured kerosene oil while Zaheer set the fire. The circumstances in which the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, are not very clear. No certificate has been appended by the Magistrate.
It is true that the case is under Section 304 I.P.C. However, the applicant is the husband and it has come that litigation between him and the deceased was pending. There is prima facie consistency in the statement of the witnesses regarding the alleged role of the applicant excepting the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where the presence of the applicant has not been stated however, no certificate is available on the copy of it.
Considering the facts and circumstances, complicity of the applicant and availability of evidence up to this juncture, the relationship of the applicant
2.
with the deceased, in totality , a case for bail is not made out. Consequently, the bail application of Noor Mohammad is rejected.
Order Date :- 9.11.2011
V.Sri/-
