Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri. G.S. Chaturvedi, senior advocate, assisted by Sri. Ajatshatru Pandey and Sri. Arun Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri. Manoj Vashistha, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
(2.) THIS bail application has been filed by the applicant Vipul Agrawal with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 263 of 2009 under Sections 304B, 498A, 328, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D. P. Act, P. S. Delhi Gate, district Meerut. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Satyendra Agrawal against the applicant and four other co -accused persons on 23.6.2009 at 7.45 a.m. alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Shilpi Agrawal was solemnized on 9.12.2003 with the applicant Vipul Agrawal. Since the first week of her marriage, the applicant and other co -accused persons putting the deceased on physical and mental harassment by adopting different means, she tolerated for a period and not informed the first informant but the applicant and other co -accused persons continued their cruelty ultimately it could not be tolerated by her, then she gave the information to the first informant about such cruelty, the first informant alongwith his wife Smt. Vaijanti Agrawal and friend Akhilesh Goyal came to the house of the applicant and requested the applicant and other co -accused for her good future and life but the gentleness of the first informant was always treated as his weakness. To satisfy her husband and other in -laws the deceased started to do the service and she alone was doing the whole work of the house. In the night of 23.6.2009 at about 1 a.m. the father -in -law of the deceased gave a telephonic massage to the first informant who was asked to reach at his house, on that information the first informant alongwith his family members came to the house of the applicant where he came to know that either the poison was administered to the deceased or she was compelled to take poison. Thereafter she was brought to the Bharat Hospital where she died. According to post mortem examination report the deceased has not sustained any ante mortem injuries, the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. The applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Court, Meerut the same has been rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Spl. Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut on 14.9.2009.
(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The applicant's wife namely Shilphi Agrawal (deceased) is said to have died on 23.6.2009 at 2.30 p.m., her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 9.12.2003 as per F.I.R. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. in respect of any demand of dowry, in which, it is alleged that since first week of her marriage she was subjected to cruelty. There is no demand of dowry for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The relations of the applicant with the deceased were cordial. From their wedlock one male child namely Shaurya at present aged about four years was born, the applicant is belonging to lower middle class family, he is working in the private company, to meet the expenses of family the deceased was also serving as a teacher. There are general allegations against the applicant and other co -accused persons. In the F.I.R. there is no specific allegation against the applicant. The entire allegation, levelled in the F.I.R. are false, frivolous and fictitious. The statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.6.2009 is in contradiction of the F.I.R. because in F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the deceased was immediately taken to Bharat Hospital by him where she died. But in statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure he stated that the deceased was taken to the Bharat Nursing Home where she died at about 6.30 a.m. The witness Akhilesh Goyal, the friend of the first informant stated under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure that nanad and nandoi of the deceased were harassing the deceased but he kept silence on a quarry whether nanad Ranjana and nandoi Pankaj were present at the time when he reached at the place of occurrence. The statement of Smt. Vaijanti Agrawal, the mother of the deceased was recorded on 30.6.2009 under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement of Sri. Vishal Agrawal, the brother of the deceased was recorded on 5.7.2009 and the statement of another brother of the deceased Shobhit Agrawal was recorded on 8.7.2009. The statement of the witness Sunil Agrawal, uncle of the deceased was recorded on 17.7.2009 who stated that from the place of occurrence a pouch of Zink Phosphide was also found, it was taken into the possession by the police, subsequently it was sealed, but in the present case many persons who are neighbours have filed their affidavits stating therein that the applicant was leading very happy married life with the deceased and there was no dispute. During course of investigation the recovery of a letter from the room of the deceased was made, it was allegedly written by the deceased. It was found in a pocket purse of the applicant kept on the bed of the deceased, in which she stated that she did not want to spoil the life of the applicant, she advised to perform the second marriage and to hand over her son Shaurya to her father. One letter pad was also found on her bed, from the alleged place of occurrence the material of vomiting was also recovered. It was alleged that pouch of Zink Phosphide which was handed over to Sub -Inspector was snatched by Vishal Agrawal, the son of the first informant from the hands of co -accused Swaraj Agrawal, the mother -in -law of the deceased, she was going to throw it outside the house. According to the suicide note also, there was no reference of demand of dowry or cruelty. The record of the Bharat Hospital shows that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the applicant where he furnished an undertaking for the purpose of providing the treatment owning the responsibility of any casualty. The deceased was short tempered and modern lady, she was compelling the applicant to live separately. The applicant has made all possible efforts to save the life of the deceased but unfortunately she died. The deceased had took the poison, the co -accused Ranjana who is nanad of the deceased and Pankaj who is nandoi of the deceased have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer, the co -accused Vipin Agrawal, father -in -law of the deceased has been released on bail on 21.8.2009 and the co -accused Smt. Swaraj Agrawal, the mother -in -law of the deceased has also been released on bail on 31.8.2009 by the High Court. It is a case in which ante mortem injury was not found on the body of the deceased, it shows that no cruelty was committed with her and the poison was not administered forcibily. The applicant is innocent person, he has not committed the alleged offence. He is in jail since 23.6.2009. There is no evidence to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty.;