Court No. - 25
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2742 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Seeta Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by Smt. Seeta Devi in Case Crime No. 59 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. She is the mother-in-law of deceased having separate living with no concern with deceased and her husband. It was a suicide by deceased owing to refusal by her husband for sending to her paternal house along with her father who had come on 14.04.2018 for bringing her for participating in the marriage of her younger sister. Applicant has been arrested on 17.04.2018. The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is of reiteration of statement in the F.I.R. and the application was moved by complainant on 30.04.2018 for naming husband- Surya Kumar Yadav as accused who was left under hurry and sadness coupled with anxiety of complainant. This occurrence was committed in morning of 16.04.2018. There had been a compromise in between husband and deceased which was in the case diary. The report has been lodged. There is no criminal history. Bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail with contention that this case was of murder also of a son of deceased aged about two and half year. The marriage was within seven years and this occurrence was of the day just when complainant had been at the house of deceased for bringing her to her parental house but was refused by present applicant.
The admitted facts are:
(I) Marriage of deceased Jyoti was solemnized on 25.08.2012 with Surya Prakash Yadav, some family dispute occurred in which compromise was entered upon the pretext of Mahila Mandal and this episode was of 14.6.2016.
(II) The complainant went to house of deceased for bringing her back after two years but present accused-applicant refused to send her.
(III) On the very next day of this refusal, this came to the knowledge of the complainant that his daughter Jyoti along with her son of two and half year had died at her nuptial house under burn.
(IV) He along with other relatives rushed on spot and found 100 per cent burn of deceased with smell of kerosene oil and death of grand-son under burn.
(V) Neither husband nor present accused-applicant nor any family member of accused gave information to police of this unnatural event or death of deceased within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances rather Magistrate perform the inquest proceedings with specific mention that the in-laws were fled from spot, none of them are the witness of inquest proceedings, whereas Gram Pradhan was the witness of proceeding. The autopsy examination was got conducted in which the death was owing to ante mortem burn injury.
(VI) The persistent demand of dowry and torture with regard to it with specific date of previous compromise has been given by each witnesses of prosecution in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(VII) There was refusal to send back to her parental house by mother-in-law, present applicant, just before this occurrence and the suicide under above anxiety and mental pressure is being admitted by learned counsel for the applicant.
Under all above facts and circumstances, heinousness of offence of dowry death along with offence of murder, menace of dowry death in society, likelihood of tempering the evidence in case of release on bail, it is not a fit case for bail.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Kamarjahan