- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. This is the second bail application due to rejection of first bail application in absence of learned Counsel for the applicant, in case crime No. C-22 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I. P. C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P. S. Kotwali, District Deoria.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that this occurrence had allegedly taken place on 9-7-2006. However, First Information Report was lodged with great delay, which was lodged on the basis of the application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. It is further contended that there was no demand of dowry from the side of the applicant and she was kept with great love and affection by him. She was woman of free nature and modern lady, as a result of which she has influenced with many friends as well as she had illicit relationship with her brother-in-law namely Anandeshwar Mishra. Therefore, she left the house of the applicant alongwith the entire ornament and articles and cash in collusion with her brother-in-law on 3-7-2004 in the mid night at about 4. 30 a. m. Applicant approached to the house of her father where he was assured by her parents that she will come back after some days. On account of being social reputation this fact was not disclosed by the applicant before anyone and it was not reported to the police station concerned. In the meantime one application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was moved by her father by making false case of dowry death. It is further contended that one love letter in her own hand writing, which was addressed to her brother-in-law Anandeshwar Mishra found by the applicant after her leaving his house. Its copy has been filed, which reveals that there was illicit relationship between Mamta (wife of the applicant) and Anandeshwar Mishra is confirmed.
(3.) IT is further contended that Rama Shanker Dubey, father of the applicant moved application before Superintendent of Police, District Deoria on 3-9-2004 and another on 19-7-2004 wherein it was mentioned that Mamta is alive and in collusion of her brother-in-law, Anandeshwar Mishra with the help of her parents she has hidden herself and informant has kept Mamta at some unknown place and the application/f. I. R. was registered to harass the applicant and interested to put pressure for the purpose of ransom on the basis of false F. I. R. There is no recovery made by the police personnel but police is not interested to support the averment of the applicant. It is further contended that arrest of the applicant was stayed by this Court till submission of the charge-sheet and police has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant. Thereafter, applicant and other co-accused persons moved Criminal Misc. Application No. 3376 of 2005 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in this Court in which Investigating Officer vide order dated 23-7-2005 was directed to explain whether victim Mamta is died or alive. Thereafter, further order was also passed by this Court on 20-4-2005, which is quoted below : "in pursuance of order dated 13-4-2005, the I. O. Mr. Surendra Nath Tiwari, C. O. Is present in the Court. He produced the case diary wherein it has been mentioned that Mamta is dead. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that he has received the information that the above named victim Mamta is not dead and she is living some where in Kolkata, but he could not furnish any address to enable the I. O. to approach the place of her living and find out the truth if any, six weeks for counter-affidavit. List on 5-7- 2005. ";