AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.A. Zaidi, J.—This is a second bail application after rejection of the earlier bail application vide order of this Court dated 25.7.06.
Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, Counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
The new ground on which the applicant-husband now wants bail is that P.W. 1 (Umesh Kumar) admitted in his cross-examination before the court at the trial that the husband was impotent and the suggestion is that the deceased wife committed suicide due to this reason.
In the first place, it will be seen from the statement of P.W. 1, which is on record, that the P.W. 1 has denied the suggestion from the side of the defence that the deceased committed suicide because of the impotence of her husband (accused-applicant). The applicant cannot, therefore, claim any advantage on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1.
Even assuming that the applicant-husband is an impotent, though this fact has not yet been established by any medical evidence, without which, it cannot be proved. The husband applicant can be deemed to be an abettor, if the wife committed suicide on that ground.
If impotent gentleman engages in the matrimony and wife subsequently commits suicide due to the frustration, the husband must be held liable for the consequences, in fact, as also in law.
Bail refused again.