- (1.) HEARD Sri P.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri Hari Om Khare and Sri Sipahi Lal Shukla, learned counsel of the complainant.
(2.) THIS application has been moved by the applicants Shrikant Mishra and Smt. Hausala Devi with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime No. 100 of 2011 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section ? D.P. Act, P.S. Machhalishahr, District Jaunpur. The brief facts of this case are that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Sunita Mishra was solemnized on 20.2.2011, thereafter the demand of motorcycle was made by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jath. To fulfil the aforesaid demand they were subjected the deceased to cruelty. In the evening on 4.3.2011 the first informant got the information that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry and at about 3.00 P.M. she has been killed by her in-laws. On that information the first informant came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body lying at the house of her husband. He lodged the FIR on 5.3.2011 at 0.25 A.M. According to the post mortem examination the deceased has not sustained any ante mortem injury. The cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. The applicants applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, who rejected the same on 7.6.2011. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the the applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. There was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty. In this regard no complaint has been made prior lodging the FIR. The deceased was very happy at her husband's house. Unfortunately on 4.3.2011 just after 12 days of her marriage the deceased became ill and started vomiting, she was having stomach pain also. The entire family of the applicants rushed to consult the doctor at Machhalishahr but the deceased Sunita died. Its information was given to the first informant immediately who came at the place of occurrence and lodged the FIR. On that FIR the inquest report was prepared, thereafter the post mortem examination was done. According to the post mortem examination report also the deceased has not sustained any ante mortem injuries. The cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. It shows that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty prior her death. The deceased has died due to her ailments but without doing the proper investigation the chargesheet has been submitted by the I.O. The conduct of the applicants were full of bonafide. The applicants are innocent, they have not committed the alleged offence, they have been made accused due to ill-will of the first informant. The inquest report was prepared in the presence of the first informant.
(3.) THE applicants are old persons. Applicant No. 1 Shrikand Mishra is aged about 65 years and applicant NO. 2 is aged about 62 years. THEy were having no concerned with the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased as of the motorcycle. THEir case is distinguishable with the case of husband of deceased, they may be released on bail. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, they were living in the said house where the deceased was living. THE deceased has died within 12 days of her marriage. THE allegation of demand of motorcycle in dowry has been made against the in-laws of the deceased for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty. THEre is no material to show that the deceased was ailing or suffering from any disease. In this regard no treatment was done. THE post mortem examination report is not reliable at all. According to the statement of Smt. Jai Devi, the mother of the deceased she had seen the injury on cheek, neck and back of the deceased. According to the inquest report which was prepared by Naib Tahsildar, the contusion were seen on the neck and back of the deceased. In photonas also such injuries have been shown which have been ignored by the doctor in noting the ante mortem injuries. In inquest report it has been mentioned that the blood was coming out from the left ear. THE death of the deceased was unnatural and viscera report has not been received. In these circumstances, the applicants may be not released on bail. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case within 12 days of her marriage, he deceased has died. The applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. They were living along with the deceased. From the side of the defence no no material has been produced to show that the deceased was ailing or any medical aid was provided to her. According to the inquest report prepared by Naib Tahsildar in the presence of the I.O. shows that the contusion were present on the back of the deceased and on the neck of the deceased. But the same has not been mentioned in the post mortem examination report. According to the post mortem examination report the cause of death was not ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. The demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty has been made. At this stage the applicants have fully established that the death of the deceased either natural or accidental. There is no good ground to release the applicants on bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this bail application is rejected.;