Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8067 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt Meena Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kandarp Srivastava,Shailendra Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Arun Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of first informant today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Kandarp Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for first informant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for committing dowry death of her daughter- in-law with general allegations being mother-in-law of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Ramendra Kumar Srivastava on 20.9.2018, his daughter Sakshi was married to Amit about one year ago and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of Rs.3,00,000/-, as dowry and when he approached her husband and mother-in-law and shown his inability to pay anything more, he was told that his daughter is 07 months pregnant and in case Rs.3,00,000/- is not sent within 15 days, she will be put to death and, thereafter, his son-in-law taken his daughter to Varanasi and yesterday he informed at about 4:30 p.m. that his daughter is unwell and admitted in Ansh Neuro Hospital and when he reached there, his daughter was admitted in I.C.U. and was declared dead, and that there were multiple injuries over the body of deceased, who was allegedly beaten by her husband and applicant; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant may not be the beneficiary of Rs.3,00,000/- allegedly demanded, as dowry; that deceased was taken to Ansh Neuro Hospital by applicant as well as husband of deceased, who signed consent papers for her operation considering her serious condition and danger to life of deceased as well as her child in womb, as mentioned in Annexure No.7; that on 19.9.2018 after taking bath deceased went to roof and when she was coming down from stairs, she slipped and sustained injuries, following which, she was admitted in hospital, as mentioned in paras 14 & 15 of affidavit given in support of bail application; that applicant is an old lady aged about 60 years; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 26.11.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that this is a case of committing brutal dowry death by husband and mother-in-law of deceased within one years of marriage; that in Annexure No.7, there is no whisper about falling of deceased from stairs; that it is very inhuman that 07 months pregnant lady was beaten by applicant and her son and, thereafter, was taken to hospital with innocent submission of apprehension of her life and life of her child in womb; that deceased was being treated with cruelty in connection with non-fulfillment of demand of dowry; that post mortem report of deceased states that deceased has sustained as many as 12 injuries all over her body and her death was caused due to coma, as a result of ante mortem injurie otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage following cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry and there is presumption of dowry death against applicant under section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of applicant Smt Meena Srivastava in case crime no.621 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Tamang