VIKASH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Vikas alias Sonu involved in Case Crime No. 37 of 1999, under sections 498-A, 304-B, Indian Penal Code read with sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar prays for bail.

(2.) The applicant is husband of deceased Smt. Rinku. The facts of this case are a little peculiar. Smt. Rinku died the very day in the night when she came to her father-in-law's house after marriage. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that, even if, there was demand of Maruti car in dowry, the in-laws must have waited for some reasonable time to see whether the demand was fulfilled or not and at least there could not be any occasion for harassment or torture on the first day of marriage. It is further contended that the inquest is also very relevant in this case because at the time of inquest it was found that there was no cloth on the body of the deceased except the p y. It is contended that this position on the dead body could only be when the couple was celebrating their first night after marriage and therefore, the probability of the harassment, torture or beating is improbable. There is sufficient force in this contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant, because if due to dowry demand on the very first day there was harassment and torture of the deceased, it is improbable and the deceased could be celebrating her first night with her husband. From the post-mortem report it is clear that the death has been caused due to exphixiya as a result of ante-mortem injuries and ante mortem injuries is on the neck which shows that there may be strangulation. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that on the night of the occurence some miscreant entered the upper room of the house where applicant and his wife were sleeping and they strangulated the deceased, looted the jewellery and kidnapped the applicant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that there was no other way to go on the upper room except from inside. However, the miscreant could use some other means to go the upper room or could have gone there concealing them-selves and could have kidnapped the applicant by making him unconscious. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the defence version was given at the earliest when the other accused were produced before remand Magistrate next date of the arrest. Annexure 5 is the complaint submitted to the Magistrate for registering the case against the unknown person and for investigation. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. However, the revision was filed by the accused side and the same was allowed and orders were passed for registering the case and for investigation on 18th Dec., 1999 and so far no report was submitted by the opposite party or by the Government Advocate that the case was found false. Therefore, defence version cannot be discarded particularly in view of improbabilities discussed above. A complaint was also filed at Panipat where applicant was allegedly released by the miscreant and when the remand was given by the Magistrate at Panipat. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the burden is upon the accused side to explain the suspicious death. However, the facts discussed above shows that the defence version is there and they are explaining the suspicious death which cannot be discarded so lightly at this stage. Considering the facts, it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.