BINDESHWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Bindeshwari with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1374 of 2006, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Bechai on 21-7-2006 at 8. 40 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 21-7-2006. THE F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and three other co- accused persons alleging therein that the marriage of the deceased Rita was solemnized with the co-accused Sanjay about six years prior the alleged incident. THE deceased gave birth to a child which was aged about two years on the date of the alleged occurrence and at that time the deceased was having a pregnancy of about four or five months. It is alleged that the applicant was committing cruelty with her and passing surcasting remarks and demanding a motorcycle and one Mela as dowry and extending a threat that in case the abovementioned demand is fulfilled, the deceased would be allowed to live in the house. An attempt was made to persuade the applicant and his son Sanjay. THE co-accused Sanjay the husband of the deceased had made attempts twice to commit the murder of the deceased after pouring the kerosene oil on her about one month's prior the alleged occurrence, the deceased was beaten by the applicant, and other co-accused persons to fulfil the demand of dowry. THE deceased was too much terrorised and to save her life she ran away to the house of her Mausa in village Darauli. When the first informant came to know, he went to the house of his Sarhu and deceased was asked not to leave her husband's house. THE deceased explained the circumstances in which she was compelled to leave the house, when the co-accused Sanjay went there to call her he was asked not to leave the deceased and not to make an attempt to commit her murder by pouring kerosene oil. He replied that he was doing such act so that the deceased may live under fear and he felt sorry and assured not to commit such acts but he asked the first informant to pursuade his father also so that the surcasting remarks my not be passed by him and dowry may not be demanded by him. On his assurance, the deceased was sent with him but she was murdered on 21-7-2006 by the applicant and other co-accused persons by putting her on fire after pouring the kerosene oil and the applicant and other co-accused persons were going to cremate the dead-body then the first informant gave information to the police. According to the post-mortem examination report, superficial drop burns were found over whole body and she was having pregnancy of about seven months.

(3.) IN reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that the applicant is aged about 63 years. There is specific allegation against the applicant in respect of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty and to fulfill the demand of dowry, he was passing surcasting remarks even the husband of the deceased asked the first informant to pursuade the applicant so that demand of dowry may not be raised by him and surcasting remarks also may not be passed. The, deceased was subjected to cruelty after her marriage even she was compelled to leave the house to save her life. Ultimately she was set on fire by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant was living in the same house where the deceased was put on fire and there is no evidence to show that the deceased was caught by fire accidently. The applicant has not given the information to the first informant, even he has not given the information to the Police Station concerned. Without giving such information he was going to dispose of the dead-body of the deceased. IN such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for bail.