Allahabad High Court
Lakshmi Devi vs State Of U.P. on 3 September, 2011
Bench: Ravindra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17744 of 2011
Laxmi Devi Versus State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, and Jag Narain, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the complainant.
This application has been field by the applicant Laxmi Devi with the prayer that she may be released on bail in case crime no. 65 of 2011 under sections 304-B,498-A, 504 I.P.C. and section ¾ of D.P.Act P.S. Saiyad Raja district Chandauli.
The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Ram Pratap Singh against the applicant, co-accused Sujeet Singh, and Smt. Chintamani and the co-accused Satish Singh on 17.4.2011 at 7.15 a.m. in respect of an incident which allegedly occurred between the parties from 25.11.2007 to 16.4.2011, it is alleged that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the co-accused Sujeet Kumar Singh on 25.11.2007, after marriage the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs, Fridge and Washing Machine was raised by the in- laws of the deceased. On non fulfillment of the demand the deceased was mentally and physically tortured, there had been a Panchayat also, ultimately, on 16.4.2011 the first informant received information that his daughter had died. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained 16 ante mortem injuries, the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The applicant applied for bail before the learned magistrate Chandauli, who rejected the same on 20.6.2011.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is Jethani of the deceased, she was living separately, with her husband and four minor children, she is having his family ration card, there are four members in the family of the applicant, who are in jail, the father in law, of the applicant has already expired, the inquest report was prepared on 17.4.2011 by that time the first informant and other witnesses were present, but in the inquest report no allegation has been made with regard to the demand of dowry etc. the applicant was having no concern with the family affairs of the deceased whereas the husband of the deceased was serving in Merchant Navy was not present at the time and place of the alleged incident, he was out of India, his ship was engaged and harbored at Iraq, Basra seaport, the applicant and three minor children are aged about 13 years, nine years, and 3,1/2 years, at the house of her husband, there is no one to look after her, one year child is along with the applicant in jail, the applicant is a peace loving lady, she was having no criminal antecedent, she is in jail since 6.4.2011, she may be released on bail.
In reply to the above contents it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the applicant is Jethani of the deceased, she was not living separately, she was living along with the deceased in the same house, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 25.11.2007 and within four years she had been killed, demand of dowry had been raised, for which the deceased was physically and mentally tortured, she has been killed in a brutal manner, the deceased had sustained 10 ante mortem injuries, after causing injury on her person, she was hanged and the bail application of another co-accused persons has not been rejected by the high Court in such a situation the applicant may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts, circumstances of the case submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 25.11.2007,she has been killed on 16.4.2011, demand of dowry was raised for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty, according to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained 16 ante mortem injuries, the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, that she was living separately, has been controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. according to them she was also living along-with the deceased in the same house and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly this application is rejected.
Dt. 3.9.2011
NA
