- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. This is third bail application. The applicant is hus band of the deceased. It is alleged to be a dowry death. The deceased had 95% burn injuries.
(2.) IT has been argued that the learned Sessions Judge has not given any reason for refusing bail to the applicant while Sobaran and Girish were released on bail. The contention is that those two persons were granted bail because no specific allegation was made against them and that in the F. I. R. also no specific allegation has been made against the applicant and, therefore, he should have been released on bail. The applicant is husband of the deceased. He had a special duty to protect his wife. Girish is younger brother of the applicant while Sobaran is his father. If these two persons were released on bail it would not automatically follow that the applicant was also entitled to bail when from the material so far placed on record it prima facie appears to be a dowry death case. Since marriage had taken place about four years back the presumptions of law are available to prosecution. IT was for the applicant to explain as to under what circumstances she died. The Sessions Judge disbelieved the theory of suicide as her body was found in naked condition with burn injuries all over the body and the applicant and his rela tions were found absconding from the house. There are definite allegations of demand of dowry and cruel treatment to the deceased. Since the applicant is the husband there is no question of parity between his case and that of his brother and father vis-a-vis deceased. It was then urged that according to the F. I. R. Mulayam Singh had informed the first informant about the death of the deceased, that his name does not find place as a withess in the charg-sheet nor his statment was recorded by the investigating officer, which would indicate that the father of the deceased was present when the deceased caught fire which would prove falsity of the prosecution case. It does not appear that Mulayam Singh is an ocular withess to the incident. If his statement was not recorded by the In vestigating Officer it was his negligence. On that account the first informant cannot be disbelieved at this stage when he says that he returned to his house in the early hours of 20-6-92 in the afternoon he received information about the death of his daughter. Had he been present then he would have made some effort to save his daughter. The fact that the deceased had 95% burn injuries would be a circumstance to indicate that none of her well-wishers were present at the time of the alleged incident. It was then urged that there is no eye-withess of the village. It appears that the Legislature recognised this difficulty in such cases and, there fore, made provision for raising presumption in favour of the prosecution in ease the deceased died within seven years of the date of her marriage. The date of marriage has not been disputed. The allegations of demand of dowry have specifically been made. At this stage mere absence of eye-withess would not entitle the applicant to get the bail. Evidence may be ocular as well as circumstantial. The evidence of circumstantial nature is better that the ocular evidence because a man may lie but circumstances never. It was then urged that the applicant is in jail for about twenty months. Nothing has been stated in the bail application to indicate as to at what state the trial is. A direction is made to the trial court to decide the trial within four months of the date a certificate copy of this order is placed before it.
(3.) WITH the above direction the bail application is rejected. Application dismissed. .;