Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51771 of 2019 Applicant :- Rahulraj @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Rahulraj @ Guddu who is involved in Case Crime No. 165 of 2018, under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Jaunpur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is husband of the deceased. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 16.6.2015. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured to the deceased. The deceased sustained burn injuries while she was making tea. The applicant tried to save the deceased due to which the applicant has also sustained burn injuries. The deceased under the pressure of her parents has made false allegation against the applicant and his family members in her dying declaration. The dying declaration of the deceased is not believable. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 28.9.2018.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died due to burn injuries. As per postmortem report 76% burn has been found on the body of the deceased. The dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded by Naib Tehsildar. In her dying declaration the deceased has clearly stated that applicant, co-accused Rakesh (Jeth), Gudia (Nanad) and Shanti (mother-in-law) poured kerosen oil upon her. The applicant and co-accused Rakesh set the deceased on fire after pouring kerosene oil. It has further been submitted that the deceased in her dying declaration has made specific allegation against the applicant for setting her on fire. The applicant is husband of the deceased who is more responsible for safety and security of his wife, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant is refused and the bail application of the applicant Rahulraj @ Guddu is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Masarrat