Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Anis @ Bablu vs State Of U.P.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 January, 2010

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The accused-applicant Anees alias Babloo is involved and detained in Case Crime No. 479 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 304 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, from Police Station Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur and he has applied for bail.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Afsana, wife of Jameer Ahmad, resident of Panjabi Colony, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur had married her daughter Nahid Parween alias Nishat to the accused Anees alias Babloo, son of Haneef, resident of Village Bakharipur, Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur on 26.1.2001. When her daughter went to her marital home, her husband Anees alias Babloo expressed his dis-satisfaction over the dowry presented by her. He started fresh demand of Rs. One lac in cash and one four wheeler vehicle from her in the form of dowry. When her daughter refused to fullfil his demand, he started to harass and torture her. It has been further alleged that the deceased Nahid Parween alias Nishat on 14.6.2009 had gone to her maika and thereafter she went to her sister's (Nasreen) house. On the same night, the accused applicant went to the house of Nasreen. At that time, he was under the state of intoxication. He started to beat her badly there. Thereafter he dragged her to his house where he had again beaten her in the presence of his grand parents and son and daughter. Consequently, she sustained injuries. The accused applicant thereafter took her to the district hospital, Sultanpur where she succumbed to her injuries on 15.6.2009. The complainant lodged written report of the occurrence on 16.6.2009 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur. The police of Police Station Kotwali Nagar, registered a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused for investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that it was not a case under Section 304-B I.P.C. Therefore, the case was converted into under Section 304 I.P.C.
The submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is that the complainant has levelled the charge against the accused applicant for demand of dowry which was found to be false by the Investigating Officer. In fact, the deceased had fallen down from the stair-case and had sustained head injuries. The accused applicant informed the complainant about the incident. She came to the hospital. The accused applicant had tried his level best to provide her best medical treatment but she on account of head injuries had breathed her lost. The accused applicant had cremated her. Learned counsel for the accused applicant further contends that the complainant just to harass the accused applicant has falsely lodged the F.I.R. It was a case of accidental death and not the homicidal death. The accused applicant, therefore, deserves to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and argued that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statements of Khusi and Sahil, the daughter and son of the deceased. They have specifically stated that the accused applicant had badly beaten their mother and pushed her against the vehicle, therefore, she sustained head injuries. In this way, it was a case of homicidal death and not the accidental death. Keeping in view of the nature of the offence, the accused applicant who is husband of the deceased does not deserve to be released on bail.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned A.G.A.
Khushi and Sahil, the daughter and son of the accused applicant has supported the prosecution case. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application is, therefore, rejected. But the trial court is directed to conclude the sessions trial pending against the accused applicant expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date, the certified copy of this order is produced before it.
21.01.2010 Sanjay/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Anis @ Bablu vs State Of U.P.

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
21 January, 2010