This bail application was rejected. The single judge found it not a fit case for bail, citing the severity of the crime (dowry death), the delay in hospital intervention, and the applicability of presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act, without commenting on the merits.
Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9833 of 2019
Applicant :- Naushad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahanshah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for committing dowry death of his wife with general allegations being husband of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Saddam Husain on 27.8.2017, his sister Shahjahah was married to applicant about two years back and since after marriage, she was being treated with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry and yesterday on 26.8.2018 treating her with cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry suplhas tablet was forcibly put in her mouth and when her condition became serious, they informed first informant and when he reached her matrimonial house, she was admitted in Barudha P.H.C., District Rampur and, thereafter, both parties taken her to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Allahabad and she died during treatment; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant got his wife admitted in Jeevan Jyoti Hospital at 4:08 a.m. on 26.8.2017 and got her discharged at 3:30 p.m.; that prior to her admission at Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, she was admitted in Barudha Hospital, Rampur in the night of 25.8.2017; that after discharge from Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, when deceased was being taken to Lucknow, she died in mid way; that post mortem report states that cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved and in viscera report at Annexure No.7 aluminium phosphide poison was found in parts of her viscera; that statement of first informant under section 161 Cr.P.C. is in contradiction with averments made in F.I.R.; that first informant has been examined during trial as P.W.1 and has not supported prosecution case; that coaccused Dilshad and Hameed, real and cousin Dewars of deceased, have been granted bail by another Benches of this
Court vide orders dated 18.7.2018 and 7.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.26753 of 2018 and 46931 of 2018, copies of which have been filed at Annexure No.8 and produced for perusal and taken on record; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 2.4.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail in this case of dowry death within 02 years of marriage and contended that applicant is husband of deceased and has failed to give any reason as to why sulphas tablet was consumed by deceased and how he could know that she has consumed sulphas tablet, as was reported by him at the time of admitting her in Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, which indicates that sulphas tablet was forcibly put in her mouth and so he had knowledge; that by taking deceased to hospital with inordinate delay does not make his offence undone; that case of Dilshad and Hameed is distinguishable, as they are Dewars and Dilshad also claimed of separate living; that soon before her death deceased was being treated with cruelty in connection with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and her death has taken place due to consumption of poisonous substance aluminium phosphide otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and there is presumption of dowry death against applicant under section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act; that if P.W.1 has turned hostile, applicant may not take benefit of his turning hostile and correctness of statement of witnesses is to be assessed by trial court at the time of final disposal of trial; that applicant, if released on bail shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud fair disposal of trail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of applicant Naushad in case crime no.317 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Mirzapur, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 7.3.2019 Tamang
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is the fit case for the applicant charged with dowry death.
Whether the presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act precludes bail at this stage.
Whether the applicant can be released on bail without commenting on the merits of the case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Naushad
State Of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
