RAHUL CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Babu Sharma appearing from the side of the complainant and also perused the materials on record.

(2.) This bail application has been moved on behalf of Sri Rahul Chandra alleged to be involved in Case Crime No. 1 of 2004 under sections 307/498A, Penal Code and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act police station Kotwali Nagar District Bulandshahr. Emphasis has been laid that the FIR version if accepted to be true on its face value, involvement of the accused applicant is not ascertainable. Further, reference to the statement of the witnesses recorded under Sec. 161, Criminal Procedure Code soon after the incident has also been made. It shall be useful to take a resume of the allegations the incident has taken place on 3rd Jan., 2004 some time in the mid night, its report was lodged next date by the brother of the victim woman Smt. Jyoti. It has been reported in that regard that about 5 1/2 years before Smt. Jyoti, sister of the complainant was married with Sri Punit Chandra and from their wedlock one daughter was born. Smt. Jyoti was subjected to cruelty time and again as demand of dowry could not be fulfilled. Further, it has also been canvassed that there were some differences in between Punit Chandra and his wife Smt. Jyoti on the question of paternity of daughter Km. Shreya and she was constantly beaten by Sri Punit Chandra which further shows that Sri Punit Chandra inflicted serious injuries to both his wife and little daughter. In that regard statements of Sanjai Kumar (brother), Shilwati (mother) and Sri Rajnish (other brother) of the victim woman recorded between the period 3rd Jan., 2004 to 8th Jan., 2004 were also referred which also speaks all about injuries inflicted by Sri Punit Chandra. It has further been urged that Punit Chandra started behaving so abnormally and violently so as to save Smt. Jyoti and her daughter, applicant and his other family members bolted Sri Punit inside the room and matter was reported to the police. In that regard a report dated 3rd Jan., 2004 bearing the seal of the police station Kotwali has also been filed. Resistance has been made by the learned Counsel appearing from the side of the complainant questioning the authenticity of this report. Its authenticity prima facie cannot be doubted because certified copy of the telegram dated 3rd Jan., 2004 has also been filed along with rejoinder-affidavit by the applicant. It has also been mentioned that the applicant was blessed with son on that very date and was busy in a nursing home in connection with caesarian delivery of his wife. Further, in the injury report the doctor of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi made an endorsement on the basis of the information given by Smt. Jyoti that the injuries were inflicted by the father of the little girl. Further, the bills of the telephone of the relevant dates have also been referred which also prima facie convey that the information of such abnormal behaviour of Punit Chandra was also communicated by his father. Emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel for the complainant that it was most unhuman conduct of the applicant. He gave severe bearings to the little girl by pushing her head on the ground. She also sustained injuries. This facts have been stated by little girl in her statement under Sec. 161, Criminal Procedure Code From the documents referred above, prima facie involvement of Punit Chandra, father of the little girl is ascertainable. In the given circumstances, accused applicant deserves bail.

(3.) Let accused applicant Sri Rahul Chandra involved in Case Crime No. 1 of 2004 under sections 307/498-A, Penal Code and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act police station Kotwali Nagar District Bulandshahr be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of e Court concerned.