Court rejected bail application of Maubaat Shah. Evidence showed death by strangulation not suicide despite claims. Bail held inappropriate given FIR implications and grim post-mortem findings.
Bail application rejected; applicant not released on bail.
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. - 40236 of 2021
Applicant :- Maubaat Shah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Sharma,Shivendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
The Court is convened through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, 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 Maubaat Shah , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 98 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kaimri, District Rampur.
The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged on 27.06.2021 by Habib Shah the father of the deceased Smt. Sabana is that she was married with Mohd. Zahid the son of the applicant around five years back and from the wedlock two children were born. There was a demand of Rs. 3 lakhs cash as dowry by the applicant and other accused persons including the husband. The deceased used to be tortured, harassed and beaten because of the demand. On 26.06.2021 at about 11:00 am the first informant received an information that his daughter has died. When he reached the matrimonial house of his daughter, he saw that she was being taken for burial in which he also participated. Later on, he came to know of the true facts of the matter and then has lodged the First Information Report and made a prayer therein that the body be exhumed and postmortem be conducted. After lodging of the First Information Report, the dead body was exhumed from the grave and postmortem was conducted on 29.06.2021. The doctor conducting the postmortem has been opined that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antimortem strangulation. He found the hyoid bone was fractured and there was a ligature mark present on the body.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the deceased committed suicide and died by hanging herself as she was in a
state of deep depression when the son of the applicant was not at home and when he came back to his house he immediately informed about the same. Para 19 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. It is further argued that the applicant is living at a different place along with his wife. He never lived with his son and the deceased. Para 17 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and is aged about 65 years. Para 24 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 22.07.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that as per his instructions, the averment that the applicant is living separately from his son and the deceased is specifically denied which has been pleaded in para 17. It is argued that the averment in para 19 of the affidavit that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself also does not fortify from the postmortem examination report as the cause of death has been opined is asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is further argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there is an allegation against him and the other accused persons. The accused persons gave a false information regarding the death of the deceased and had buried the body. It was later on exhumed and the postmortem was conducted after which it was deciphered that the death is unnatural and was due to strangulation. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. The averment in para 19 of the affidavit that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself does not get fortified from the postmortem examination wherein the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The postmortem was conducted after the dead body was exhumed. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 2.2.2022 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC during trial for offences under IPC 304-B, 498-A and D.P. Act 3/4 in a dowry death case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maubaat Shah
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
