CHUNBAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Applicant is facing the charge of committing dowry death of his wife, who has come up before this Court in order to seek bail, as the same has been rejected by the Court below on 29.2.2016

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. Further submission is that the deceased was appearing in the Intermediate Examination and because of performing badly in the Exam, she became extremely frustrated because of which she committed suicide. Further submission is that the applicant never indulged in any kind of demand of dowry and never ill-treated his wife. Further submission is that the information of the commission of suicide was given to the police by the father of the applicant duly on which inquest proceeding had taken place. Due information to the parental side was also given and they had also arrived. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the inquest proceeding indicating that the father of the deceased, namely, Bhura, who is the first informant of the case, was also one of the witnesses in the inquest proceeding. Submission is that as there was no complaint against the applicant, at that stage, no allegation was made against the applicant during the course of inquest proceeding despite having opportunity for the same as the Police Officers were very much present at that time. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the incident is said to have taken place on 5.4.2015 but the FIR was lodged on 22.4.2015 by the first informant after an inordinate delay, which has no adequate explanation for the same. Next submission is that the post mortem report would also indicate that the deceased died because of ante-mortem hanging and except the ligature mark, there was no other injury present on the body of the deceased, which would indicate that she was not subjected to any kind of violence before her death. Further submission is that the allegation to the contrary in which the applicant is said to have caused beating to the deceased stands falsified by the findings of the post mortem report. Contention is that had there been any truth in the allegation of either demand of dowry or committing cruelty upon the deceased then there is no justification or explanation as to why the first informant, who had arrived at the time, when the inquest proceeding took place, did not lodge FIR earlier and lodged it so belatedly. Contention is that it is so obvious that the FIR has been lodged as an after thought with due deliberations falsely. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 4.6.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.