In a bail application before Court No. 88 under Section 439 CrPC, the applicant Ram Raj sought release in a murder and cruelty case involving his deceased wife. The court rejected the plea, noting the FIR charges were true and the deceased attributed a specific role to the applicant during the incident.
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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1391 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Raj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant - Ram Raj, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 47 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 504, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Trilokpur, District - Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is argued that the incident in the present case is of 14.6.2019. The first information report was lodged under Section 498-A, 504, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 19.6.2019 against the applicant, Mau, mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Saloni, and Punvasi, father-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that subsequently, Smt. Saloni died on 8..8.2019 then Section 302 I.P.C. was added in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Shaloni while she was alive on 21.6.2019 she has stated that the applicant, who is her husband, set her on fire by igniting her 'sari' from behind and ran away but the eyewitnesses being Smt. Laxmi Devi, Smt. Rita Devi, Ms. Gulshan, Smt. Shanti Devi, during examination, had stated that on hearing shout they went inside the house and found Smt. Saloni in a burning condition but did not found anyone else in the house. Then they rescued her and took her to the hospital. It is argued that although in the FIR there is an allegation that the deceased was even previously subjected to some burns but she has not stated anything in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as such, the same is false. It is argued that marriage of the deceased with the applicant was solemnized 10 years back,
as such, there was no reason of her being tortured or harassed by the applicant and his family members. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 32 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.06.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The factum that the applicant is living in the same house where the incident has taken place is not disputed. The deceased was taken to the hospital in an injured condition on 14.6.2019 wherein the Doctor found 35% burn injury on her body. It is argued that statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. gives specific role to the applicant of igniting her from the back while she was cooking food. The manner of incident, as stated by her, corroborates with the injuries received by her. It is argued that the alleged eyewitnesses had reached the place of occurrence after the deceased received burn injuries and was running in the house and shouting. It is argued that as such, the applicant is involved in the present matter and therefore, his bail application may be rejected.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the FIR. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the deceased Smt. Saloni gives specific role to the applicant.
The bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 3.2.2022 nd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, as the husband of the deceased recorded in FIR, deserves bail in a murder case involving dowry
The court rejected the claim of false implication due to the deceased's statement giving a specific role to the applicant
Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history warrants granting bail
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Raj
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
