Allahabad High Court
Punjab Singh vs State Of U.P. on 27 August, 2015
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? A.F.R.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34159 of 2014
Applicant :- Punjab Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Arun Srivastava,Ali Hasan,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard counsel for the applicant-Punjab Singh and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
The submission of the counsel is that the post-mortem report of the dead body of the deceased is not very conclusive on the point that the burns found on the dead body of the deceased were post-mortem in nature as the place where the injuries have been found described, is the place where normally injuries are described under the heading 'ante-mortem'. However submission is that there are no symptoms noted which may indicate the nature of the injury to be post-mortem. Further submission is that the applicant had also purchased some property in the name of his wife and the husband had also deposited Rs.1000/- per month in a recurring deposit in the name of his wife that would go to show that the applicant would not have been demanding any dowry as has been alleged. It was lastly pointed out that the co-accused father-in-law and mother-in-law both have been released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is sufficient evidence disclosed by the version of the first informant given in the F.I.R. and also in the other statements recorded by the Investigating Officer that despite sufficient gifts given at the time of marriage, the applicant-accused as well as his family members were not satisfied with it and that had resulted into gross ill-treatment of the deceased, which was meted out to her. It was in this background that it was insisted upon by the accused side that a plot should be given by her father otherwise the deceased would be killed. It was also pointed out that there is evidence and in the first information report itself, it has been stated that the first informant somehow managed a plot and gave it to the applicant and also managed a rented house for him in which the applicant and his wife were residing at the time of the incident. It was also insisted upon by the accused's side that the first informant should also manage to construct a house on that plot otherwise his daughter would be eliminated and it was in this background that the deceased was done to death in her house. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report in which it is clearly mentioned that the tongue was found protruding outside and it has been categorically mentioned by the Doctor that the burns present on the dead body were of post-mortem nature. Equally important is the finding of the Doctor that the deceased died as a result of asphyxia.
Learned A.G.A. has tried to submit that the findings of the post-mortem report are sufficient to conclude that the girl was first killed by throttling or smothering and then later on was burnt, as the accused wanted to dispose of the dead body and destroy the evidence of murder. It was also submitted by the counsel that the applicant being the husband, it was his legal as well as moral obligation to ensure the welfare of his wife and the fact that the co-accused has been released on bail will not bring his case on the same footing because of his conspicuous obligatory relationship with his wife.
I have considered the submissions raised at the bar and perused the record in the light of the same.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 27.8.2015
YK
