Geeta Devi vs State Of U.P.

Sameer Jain, J

Counter affidavit filed today by counsel for the first informant is taken on record.

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel for first informant.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Amapur, District- Kasganj, during pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is mother in law of the deceased and she resides separately with her younger son namely, Devesh Kumar Chauhan and she is having no concern with the family affairs of the deceased and deceased i.e. her daughter in law committed suicide as there was some dispute between husband and wife. He next submitted that the post mortem report of the deceased clearly suggests that it is a case of suicide. It is wrongly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the deceased died homicidal death and there is no specific allegation against the applicant and she was made accused on the basis of general allegations and as she is a lady and mother in law of the deceased, therefore, she should be released on bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture in the F.I.R. and the deceased admittedly died within 7 years of marriage in an abnormal circumstances, therefore, the burden lies upon the applicant to explain the death.

Both the counsel further submit that although applicant took a defence that she is residing separately but there is no document on record in this regard. They further submit that on record, there is an electricity bill of the younger son of the applicant, but on that basis it cannot be said that applicant was residing with him separately with the deceased and her husband.

Learned counsel for the first informant submits that earlier also, applicant and her family members tortured and assaulted the deceased due to want of dowry in the year 2020. On 03.08.2020, the deceased sustained several injuries in the incident and deceased also medically examined in this regard on 07.08.2020 and her medical report has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit which shows that she sustained as many as 5 injuries out of which 4 were contusion but F.I.R. of that incident could not be registered as the informant was of the view that deceased is the daughter in law of the applicant and later on the matter may be reconciled.

Learned counsel for the first informant further submits that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant clearly stated that he wanted to lodge the F.I.R. in respect of the incident dated 03.08.2020 but due to intervention of some persons, he did not lodge the F.I.R. and in the statement, he further stated that in regard to harassment of the deceased by the applicant and her family members, panchayat was also held, and therefore, in these circumstances, it is apparent that applicant and her family members were continuously harassing the deceased and if the deceased even committed suicide due to their harassment then also applicant being mother in law cannot be escaped from her responsibilities and therefore, the present bail application is liable to be dismissed.

I have given my anxious consideration on the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

The F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 29.12.2021 and as per the F.I.R., the marriage of the deceased was performed with the son of the applicant in February, 2019 and after marriage, applicant and her family members continuously harassed the deceased for want of dowry and in this regard, the matter was somehow reconciled through panchayat but in spite of that, applicant and her family members did not stop harassing the deceased and ultimately, on 29.12.2021, deceased, the daughter of the informant, died. The statement of informant i.e. father of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that earlier also, in respect of demand of dowry, deceased was assaulted on 03.08.2020 and she sustained injuries and her medical was conducted in the hospital. The medical report of the deceased was on record which was filed by the informant in his counter affidavit which shows that on 07.08.2020 when medical examination of the deceased was conducted, then she sustained as many as 5 injuries and therefore, allegation of torture and assault in the incident dated 03.08.2020 finds support from the medical report of the deceased.

However, specific defence was taken by the applicant that she is residing separately but there is no document on record on the basis of which it can definitely be presumed that she was residing separately. On record, she filed an electricity bill of her younger son Devesh Kumar Chauhan but on the basis of this, it cannot be said that she was residing separately with her younger son.

As there is specific allegation of dowry and torture and earlier also, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and was assaulted by the applicant and her family members and in this regard, her medical report was also on record and the deceased died abnormally within 7 years of marriage, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of Section 113-B of Evidence Act, I find it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed.