JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri S.P. Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant Mahendra Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 720 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Chirgaon district Jhansi.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that in the present case an F.I.R. has been lodged by Sri Ramadhar at P.S. Chirgaon on 6.5.2005 at about 8.10 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 16.4.2005. It is alleged that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Chandrawati was solemnized with the applicant on 20.1.2004. The dowry was given but the applicant and other co-accused persons were not satisfied and demand of a motor cycle and Rs. 20,0007- was made by them, to fulfill the demand of dowry they developed pressure. The applicant and the other co-accused asked the deceased for fulfilling the demand of dowry by her father and brother, she replied in negative then kerosene was poured on the deceased and she was set on fire. At that time she was having the pregnancy of 3 or 4 months. Thereafter, a telephonic massage was given to the first informant that the deceased was not feeling well and on that information the first informant and other came at the house of the applicant where the deceased was not found by them and they were told by the villagers that the deceased has been taken to medical collage Jhans because after pouring kerosene oil she was set on fire by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Tehsildar. The deceased died on 16.4.2005 in medical college Jhansi. Thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the counsel for the applicant:-
I. That there was no demand of dowry. The allegation in respect of the demand of dowry is absolutely false and concocted. The deceased was never subjected to cruelty. The dying declaration of the deceased is after thought, which was a tortured statement, because in the presence of the first informant and Ors., this statement was recorded. The deceased was admitted in the medical college Jhansi on 11.4.2005 at about 8 a.m. In the admission note the doctor has written the statement given by the deceased as ' patient alleged who sustained the burn injuries from cooking the food It is evident from the bed head ticket of the deceased, but the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Naib Tehsildar on 11.4.2005 at 5.25 p.m. She stated that the applicant poured kerosene when she was sleeping at about 5.00 a.m. and her sister in law set her on fire but her brother in law Mata Prasad tried to save her life. She was admitted in the hospital by her mother in law and sister in law and her husband. The F.I.R. is delayed by 20 days. There is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R.
II. That the deceased was not murdered by the applicant and other co-accused. Accidentally, she was caught by fire at the time of cooking the food.
III. That the applicant is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he may be released on bail.
It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting:-
1. That the deceased has been murdered within a period of one and half year from her marriage. There was a demand of dowry and the applicant and other co-accused persons were compelling the deceased, her father and brother to fulfill the demand of dowry. Kerosene oil was poured on the deceased thereafter she was set on fire. There is a dying declaration recorded by the learned magistrate in which she has specifically alleged that kerosene was poured by the applicant and sister of the applicant set her on fire. At that time she was having pregnancy of five months.
2. That in her dying declaration there was specific allegation in respect of the demand of dowry and of cruelty also and no reliance can be placed on the noting done by the doctor at the time of admission which is generally noted at the saying of the person who brought the patient to the hospital. On the same day of the admission her dying declaration was recorded by the learned magistrate. The applicant being the husband of the deceased is the main accused and there is specific allegation against him. Therefore, he may not be released on bail.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the dying declaration which was recorded by the learned magistrate and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, prayer for bail is refused.
6. Accordingly this application is rejected.