Farman vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.

This application has been filed on behalf of the husband Farman in case crime No. 564 of 2007, under sections 498A/316 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Mansoori, District Ghaziabad.

The allegations in the FIR, which was lodged in the form of an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were that the applicant Farman, his first wife Asia, Begam, Shaukeen, Momin, Sajda and Idris caught hold of Shahnaz and poured kerosene oil and set her on fire and within fifteen minutes a child was born and died and that is why the charge under section 316 IPG was also made.

So far as Shahnaz is concerned, she has 80% burnt. Initially the prosecution was of the opinion that Shahnaz would die and her statement was recorded in the form of dying declaration, which was subsequently treated as statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. It is stated that Shahnaz had returned from her Maika one week back and on the date of incident, i.e. 11.6.2007 at about 4.00 A.M. her husband, the applicant, her Sautan Asia and Jethani Begam picked her up from cot, poured kerosene oil and set her on fire and when she tried to cover her from Rajai, they snatched it. The applicant used to ask Shahnaz to bring Rs. 20,000/ from her mother. It was, however, mentioned that her Jeth Kaluwa alias Irfan and Raghubir took her to the hospital.

I find little reason at this juncture to disbelieve this most natural statement of the victim and failed to understand as to why she would invent such a story when she was 80% burnt.

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that if four persons were engaged in this fashion, how could the applicant escapes.

Learned Counsel can raise all these points during trial.

At this juncture, I find no ground to release the applicant on bail in the aforesaid case.

The bail application is rejected.

Bail Rejected.