Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26296 of 2021 Applicant :- Husn Begum @ Husn Bano Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmed Faizan,Syed Mohd Taqi Abdi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Syed Ahmed Faizan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Husn Begum @ Husn Bano, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 281 of 2019, under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report of the present case was registered under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. by Naushad Khan, the husband of the proseuctrix / deceased Smt. Ashiya, levelling allegation against Dilshad of committing rape upon his wife. Subsequently, the wife of the first informant was burnt on the next day when she had gone out of the house to freshen herself in the morning. It is argued that there are two recorded dying declarations of the deceased, wherein, in the first dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer, she states that her mother-in-law, jeth and jethani poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Subsequently, in the second dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the doctor, she states that her mother-in-law, who is the applicant had told her not to make any complaint about the incident of rape to which, she had refused after which her mother-in- law, father-in-law, devar and jethani set her on fire.
It is argued that charge-sheet in the present case has been submitted wherein the Investigating Officer has exonerated the jethani of the deceased finding her implication to be false in the present case. It is further argued that in the dying declaration recorded by the doctor, there are general and common role assigned to the applicant, who is the mother-in-law, father-in-law, devar and jethani of the deceased of setting her on fire whereas in the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer, her mother-in-law, jeth and jethani are stated to have poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. It is argued that the incident in the present case is of 07.05.2019 after which the deceased was admitted in the hospital and she died on 04.06.2019 which is after about a month wherein the cause of death opined by the doctor was septicemia shock as a result of antemortem injury and the doctor had found superficial to deep thermal burn all over the body except both legs and at other places and the burn was about 60 percent. It is argued that the applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. There are general and omnibus allegations levelled against the applicant in both dying declarations. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 14 and is in jail since 27.06.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the dying declarations of the deceased and there is an allegation of pouring kerosene and setting her on fire along with other co-accused persons. The deceased has died due to the burn injuries. The applicant was stated to have committed the offence as she was pressurizing the deceased not to make complaint against her jeth, who had committed rape upon her and on her refusal to the same, she was burnt to death.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the role assigned to the applicant is of stating to the deceased not to make any complaint against her jeth, who had committed rape upon her. Both the dying declarations name the applicant and there are allegations of the applicant pouring kerosene upon the deceased and setting her on fire which gets corroboration from the postmortem report.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)