Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by applicant Rajendra Prasad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2006, under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C, and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pali Mukimpur, district Aligarh.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by one Dhananjay Kumar Sharma on 24.7.2006 at 10.30 p.m. against the applicant and other accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Suman, the sister of the first informant, was solemnized on 11.5.2005 with co-accused Krishna Gopal the son of the applicant, but the in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the gift given to them and the money given by the first informant in the marriage. THEy were demanding a Maruti Alto car and to fulfil the demand of dowry they were subjecting the deceased with cruelty. Its complaint was made by the deceased to her family members. On 23.7.2006 the first informant and his mother were called by the deceased at Chharra where she disclosed the fact that she was beaten by her in-law only because the Alto car has not been given in dowry, but in the evening of 23.7.2006 the deceased was killed by her in-law by putting her on fire. THE dead body of the deceased was taken to the police station from the mortuary by the first informant. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has received burn injuries and the cause of death was thermal burn injuries. Heard Sri P. C. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Puneet Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. He is a retired teacher. He is aged about 65 years. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are of general in nature. There is no specific allegation against the applicant. The allegation in respect of demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased with cruelty to fulfil the same demand is absolutely false and baseless, because there was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected with cruelty. The deceased was always maintained as a housewife in a cool and calm atmosphere. She gave birth to a baby on 1.3.2006 and she was an educated lady. There is no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was subjected with cruelty or there was any demand of dowry, but unfortunately the deceased received burn injuries accidentally on 23.7.2006 at 7.00 p.m. when she entered in kitchen and lighted L.P.G. stove, because there was leakage of gases, due to which the deceased was caught by the fire. She was immediately rushed to Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh, where she was admitted by the son of the applicant. Its information was given to the first informant on his mobile phone, who reached the hospital, but he lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The F.I.R. has been lodged on legal advice. It has been scribed by Sri Ved Prakash Sharma, advocate, who is a practicing lawyer of district court, Aligarh and there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected with cruelty to fulfil the demand of dowry soon before her death. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence, but he had been falsely implicated due to ill will of the first informant and the applicant is having no criminal antecedents, therefore, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant submit that the deceased has been murdered within 15 months of her marriage. The demand of dowry was there and on the same day of the alleged occurrence she was subjected with cruelty. The deceased was set on fire after pouring the kerosene oil, because according to the spot inspection note the kerosene oil was poured and a container of kerosene oil was found at the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant is hale and hearty person and being the father-in-law of the deceased he was more responsible person and there is no reason of false implication of the applicant. The conduct of the applicant and other co-accused persons was highly doubtful, because they were fled away from the hospital leaving the dead body of the deceased. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant, the gravity of the offence is too much and 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 application is rejected.;