AJAY PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail on behalf of the accused applicant, Ajay Pal, who is detained in Case Crime No.222 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. It is argued on behalf of the applicant regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable evidence against him; that the family members of the deceased were informed about the demand of dowry and they had reached at the hospital. There was no demand of dowry and this allegation has been levelled just to make out a case against the applicant and, as such, the applicant deserves bail. The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. by contending that the applicant is the husband of the deceased; that the death of Smt. Suman has occurred within a period of two years from the date of her marriage; that there are sufficient evidence against the applicant; that there are specific allegations of demand of dowry and the deceased was being harassed by accused and his family members for non- fulfillment of the demand of dowry and, as such, the applicant 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. There are sufficient material against the applicant to connect him with the incident in question. In the instant case, newly wedded woman had lost her life. No one like to set fire to herself unless provoked and compelled to take that desperate step. In case of dowry death, it is immaterial whether death is homicidal or suicidal. Both are unnatural death and ingredient of offence in the instant case is complete.The defence of accused cannot be considered at this stage. At the stage of disposal of the bail application, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case, is not required to be undertaken. The broad spectrum of the case is to be seen at this stage apart from the nature and severity of the offence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of offence, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence and broad spectrum of prosecution 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, the trial court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously and to decide the case preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.