Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56347 of 2019 Applicant :- Lajjawati Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Arshad Khan,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application, moved by applicant Lajjawati in Case Crime No. 324 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Adampur, District- Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent; she has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 1.11.2019; she is of no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence, in case of release on bail. First Information Report was got lodged against seven persons, whereas charge-sheet was filed against applicant, her son who is husband of deceased and other son who is devar of deceased, only. Villagers, in their statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., have said that at the time of occurrence, applicant along with her son Amit, was at field and she was not present at the place of occurrence. Amit has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.6.2020, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14048 of 2020, by coordinate Bench of this Court. General allegations have been levelled against applicant. She, being lady is languishing in jail, as above. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that instant report was got lodged on the date of occurrence itself, after an interval of five hours, wherein, it was contended that after information, informant had rushed at the nuptial house of deceased and door was found closed from outside and it was got opened and dead body of deceased was hanging. But this was having injuries over it. Instantly matter was reported. Police had rushed on spot. Dead body, in its autopsy examination report, was having antemortem injuries in it. Those were:- Bleeding from both nostrils, nasal bone fracture, blackening over both left and right eyes, with traumatic swelling over both eyes, abrasion in the ear of 9cm X 10cm over right side of face including right eyes, abrasion of 3cm X 3cm over left side of chin, contusion of 4cm X 3cm over right side of back, lateral side of 14 cm below of right axilla, with ligature mark and protruded tongue i.e. it was not mere hanging causing asphyxia. Rather, grievous hurt caused over face as well as thorasic area, with deep injury over eyes, fracture of nasal bone etc. and death was owing to asphyxia as well as shock, as the result of antemortem injuries. It was a case of homicidal hanging. Meaning thereby, this was not suicide by deceased, rather a homicidal hanging, after giving that much grievous assault, written as above. This occurrence is within four months of marriage and since the beginning, demand of dowry coupled with cruelty was said by informant, at every stage. Applicant is mother-in-law. She being head of family, expected to look after every member of family, but she was in company to give this torture and cruelty. All ingredients of dowry death is there and it was the scenario of menace of dowry, which caused legislature to enact Section 304-B in Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. It is a brutal murder case and in case of release on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with evidence and fleeing from course of justice. Hence, be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the material placed on record, as has been narrated by learned AGA, this Court is not convinced to the parity claimed by applicant with the grant of bail to co-accused Amit. Moreso, Amit was devar- younger brother of husband, having no role in decision making of family, but present applicant is mother-in- law and head of family, hence, her situation is entirely different than that of Amit. Under all above facts and circumstances and considering the menace of dowry in society as well as likelihood of tampering with evidence in case of release on bail but without commenting on the merit of case, no ground for bail is there.
Hence, rejected.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Kamarjahan