ASHA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Asha Ram who is detained in case crime no.786 of 2006 under Section 498A/304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. It is alleged by the prosecution that deceased Smt. Anita Devi, aged about 21 years was married with accused-applicant Asha Ram alias Assu and since the date of her marriage she was harassed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and ultimately on 25.9.2006 accused committed dowry death of Smt. Anita. Sri Mohan Lal,father of Smt. Anita lodged report of the incident against the applicant and his family members. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that Smt. Anita has committed suicide and it is not a case of dowry death. That no dowry was ever demanded. That co-accused Bateshwar and Phoolmati, who happen to be father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have been admitted to bail and there is no reliable evidence against the applicant and as such the applicant deserves bail. The bail is however opposed by learned A.G.A. by contending that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and he was fully responsible for the safety and security of the deceased, who was his wife. That there are sufficient materials against him and as such he does not deserve bail. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties alongwith the grounds taken by the applicant in his bail application. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. For the purposes of Section 304 IPC, it is irrelevant whether the death is homicidal or suicidal. The death has occurred within seven years of marriage at the house of the applicant. There are sufficient materials to connect the applicant with the crime in question. It is settled law that at the stage of consideration of bail application, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merit of the case is not required to be undertaken. Broad spectrum of the case is to be seen at this stage apart from nature of the proposed evidence and severity of the offence and punishment. The offence is of very serious nature and sufficient material is available against the applicant. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. The bail is therefore refused and the application for bail is rejected accordingly. However, it is directed that the learned trial court shall decide the trial expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Office is also directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned.