Qaiyum Ahmad Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35201

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3580 of 2024

Applicant :- Qaiyum Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Upadhyay,Shivendra S Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ahsan Ahmad,Mohammad Javed

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Javed who appears for the informant as well as Sri Ganesh Datt Bhatt, the counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.36 of 2024 under sections 498-A, 504, 302, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR lodged on 18.01.2024, it was alleged that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant in the year 2021 and after the marriage, they were residing in a rented accommodation. It was also stated that in the year 2022, a girl child was born out of the wedlock. It was also alleged that demands for dowry were being made on various occasions. It was also stated that on 30.12.2023, on an information received from the daughter that she was being harassed, the informant went to her matrimonial home and tried to counsel them, however the family was returned by the applicant. It was further stated that on 15.01.2024 in the morning, an information was given by the applicant that the health of the daughter of the informant was not well. It was also stated that when the informant went there, he saw the injuries on the body of the daughter and an apprehension was expressed that the applicant has killed the daughter. It was also stated that funeral was done on 16.01.2024 and thereafter the FIR was got registered on 18.01.2024.

¶9

4. In the light of the said assertions contained in the FIR, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant and the deceased had entered into love marriage which was not acceptable to the family of the deceased and is revealed in the statement of the brother of the victim, which are contained on record. He next argues that a suicide note was also written by the deceased prior to committing suicide, which is on record at page 29 of the paper book. He further argues that, as per the statement of the neighbour, who was also the landlady, she stated that the applicant had informed her that about 9.30, the

¶10

victim has committed suicide and this fact was informed by the landlady to the police authorities, the police authorities after inquest, sent the body for postmortem which was concluded on 15.01.2024 at about 09:00 pm. In the said postmortem report, as many as seven injuries were also observed on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was revealed as ante-mortem smothering.

¶11

5. On the basis of the said documents, the counsel for the applicant argues that a fight had taken place in between the applicant and his wife prior to the offence in question and thereafter the suicide note was allegedly written by the victim. He further argues that the finding in the postmortem report to the effect that the cause of death as ante-mortem smothering, is prima-facie incorrect in view of the condition of the body. To support his argument, he draws my attention to the Modi Medical Jurisprudence. He further argues that despite the fact that the police authorities had sent the body for the postmortem and the postmortem report was received, no FIR was registered at the instance of the police authorities prior to the lodging of the FIR at the instance of the informant on 18.01.2024 at 16:22, which according to the applicant goes in favour of the applicant. He further argues that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 19.01.2024 and even the charge has not been framed till date, as such, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

6. The counsel for the applicant also places reliance on the statement of one of the friend of the deceased, wherein she has stated that she was a close friend and the victim had married the applicant out of free will, however, after the birth of the child, she used to inform that the applicant used to harass her for dowry. She also stated that she was a very good friend and the victim could have done anything but suicide.

¶13

7. The counsel for the informant, on the other hand, argues that the postmortem report on record, specifically depicts the injuries sustained by the victim and also records the cause of death as ante-mortem smothering, which is not possible in respect of a person who has written suicide note and commits suicide. He further argues that during the investigation, it had transpired that the victim could not write Urdu whereas the suicide note was written in Urdu which further indicates complexity of the applicant with the offence in question. He further argues that it was the applicant who had set up the entire case by making false suicide note and thereafter he also destroy the evidences in the form of CCTv Footage, which is evident and came into light during the investigation. In the light of the said, he argues that considering the gravity of the offence and

¶14

the manner in which the offence has been allegedly committed, no case for bail is made out and the bail application may be rejected.

¶15

8. Sri Ganesh Dutt Bhatt, the counsel for the State also opposes the bail application and adopts the arguments of the counsel for the informant. In respect of the lodging of the FIR, he argues that after the postmortem report was received, the same was sent to the Circle Officer and thereafter the FIR could have lodged, however, the FIR came to be registered at the instance of the family members of the victim, as such, the delay in lodging the FIR, at the behest of the police authorities, is wholly justified.

¶16

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, although the applicant has placed heavy reliance on the suicide note and even if the contention of the counsel for the applicant are accepted to the effect that a fight had taken place in between the applicant and the victim prior to the death, there is no material to demonstrate that the applicant was not involved in the death, particularly when the cause of death is antemortem smothering; the statement of the friend of the victim, relied upon by the counsel for the applicant, also prima-facie suggests that the deceased not have committed the suicide. In any event of the matter, the unnatural death has taken place prior to seven years of marriage and apart from the applicant there was no one at home.

¶17

10. In view thereof, finding these materials prima-facie linking the applicant with the offence in question, no case for bail is made out. The bail application is rejected.

¶18

11. However, it is directed that the trial court shall expedite the trial and in any case, the fact witnesses shall be examined preferably within a period of six months.

¶19

12. The applicant would be at liberty to revive the bail after recording of the fact witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.5.2024 VNP/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Qaiyum Ahmad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qaiyum Ahmad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Antim Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Manish Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. Lucknow

Umesh Dikshit vs Smt. Indra Agnihotri and 5 Others

Suraj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home