- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the Applicant Jagat Narain Singh with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 50 of 2006 under Sections 498- A, 304-B and 201 I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act P. S. Raipura District Chitrakoot.
(2.) THAT prosecution story in brief is that F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Sheo Ram Singh on 20-11- 2005 at about 15. 50 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 20-11-2005 at unknown time. The distance of the police station was about 4 k. m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and five other co-accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of Smt. Sangeeta Devi was solemnized with the applicant about 4 years prior the alleged occurrence. The applicant and other co-accused persons were demanding Hero Honda motor cycle and Rs. 2 lacs and to fulfill the demand of dowry the deceased was subject to cruelty. On 20-11-2005 at about 7. 30 a. m. the applicant gave information to the first informant that the deceased Sangeeta has consumed sulphas and she was admitted in Kamla Poly Clinic, Allahabad. On that information the first informant and his wife went to Allahabad and came to know from the hospital authorities that the dead-body which was brought by the applicant and other co-accused persons has been taken back by them. Thereafter, the first informant and others came to the village of the applicant by that time; the dead-body was cremated by the applicant and other co-accused persons. Heard Sri Onkar Singh and Sri Prakash Chandel, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. for the State and Sri Rajesh Singh learned Counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant: (1) That there was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty to fulfill the demand of dowry. (2) That the applicant himself gave information to the first informant because the deceased has taken sulphas. She was admitted in Kamla Polyclinic, Allahabad. The first informant and other came to the hospital. The deceased died in the hospital. (3) That with the consent of the first informant and his family members the cremation of the dead-body was done because the first informant was satisfied that the deceased has committed suicide by way of taking sulphas. (4) That after cremation the first informant and others started demanding valuable of the deceased and cash which have been spent in marriage and when their demand was refused by the applicant then he went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. (5) That in the night of 19/20-11-2005 the deceased was having a severe stomach pain because she has taken sulphas. The deceased was immediately taken by the hospital named Aakansha Clinic at Raipura in a tractor at about 11-12 p. m. but the doctor was not present there that is why she was taken to Kamla Polyclinic Allahabad where she died. (6) That it has been stated by the witness that Dhan Raj Singh and Dharam Narain under Section 161 Cr. P. C. that the applicant made all his efforts to save the life of the deceased but unfortunately she died. (7) That the allegation made against the applicant and other co- accused are general in nature but there is no specific allegation against the applicant. (8) That co-accused persons namely Chandra Bhan Singh, Raj Narain and Ratan Singh have been released by this Court on bail on 21-2- 2006 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 3386 of 2006 and that Smt. Bela Devi has been released on bail on 20-4-2006 in criminal misc. bail application No. 72802 of 2006, therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail. In reply to the above contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. (I) That the deceased has died within 4 years of her marriage. There was demand of dowry against the applicant. The cause of death was unnatural. (II) There was demand of dowry and the deceased was subjected to cruelty to fulfill the demand of dowry. The dead-body of the deceased was cremated by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is wrong to say that the cremation was done in the presence of the first informant and his family members. (III) That the fact is that the first informant and his family members could not see the deceased after death. The applicant being the husband of deceased is the main accused. There was legal and social obligation to maintain the deceased in a cool and calm atmosphere and without giving any information to the police the dead-body of the deceased has been cremated. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly the bail applications rejected. Application rejected. .;