Court No. 20
Criminal Misc. Case No. 6599 (B) of 2009
Anees alias Babloo ...Versus... State of U.P
.
Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.
The accused-applicant Anees alias Babloo is involved and
detained in Case Crime No. 479 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 304
I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, from Police Station Musafirkhana, District
Sultanpur and he has applied for bail.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Smt.
Afsana, wife of Jameer Ahmad, resident of Panjabi Colony, Police
Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur had married her daughter
Nahid Parween alias Nishat to the accused Anees alias Babloo, son of
Haneef, resident of Village Bakharipur, Police Station Kadipur, District
Sultanpur on 26.1.2001. When her daughter went to her marital home,
her husband Anees alias Babloo expressed his dis-satisfaction over the
dowry presented by her. He started fresh demand of Rs. One lac in cash
and one four wheeler vehicle from her in the form of dowry. When her
daughter refused to fullfil his demand, he started to harass and torture
her. It has been further alleged that the deceased Nahid Parween alias
Nishat on 14.6.2009 had gone to her maika and thereafter she went to
her sister’s (Nasreen) house. On the same night, the accused applicant
went to the house of Nasreen. At that time, he was under the state of
intoxication. He started to beat her badly there. Thereafter he dragged her
to his house where he had again beaten her in the presence of his grand
parents and son and daughter. Consequently, she sustained injuries. The
accused applicant thereafter took her to the district hospital, Sultanpur
where she succumbed to her injuries on 15.6.2009. The complainant
lodged written report of the occurrence on 16.6.2009 at Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur. The police of Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, registered a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾
Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused for investigation. During the
course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that it was not a
case under Section 304-B I.P.C. Therefore, the case was converted into
under Section 304 I.P.C.
The submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant is
that the complainant has levelled the charge against the accused
applicant for demand of dowry which was found to be false by the
Investigating Officer. In fact, the deceased had fallen down from the
stair-case and had sustained head injuries. The accused applicant
informed the complainant about the incident. She came to the hospital.
The accused applicant had tried his level best to provide her best medical
treatment but she on account of head injuries had breathed her lost. The
accused applicant had cremated her. Learned counsel for the accused
applicant further contends that the complainant just to harass the accused
applicant has falsely lodged the F.I.R. It was a case of accidental death
and not the homicidal death. The accused applicant, therefore, deserves
to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and argued that the
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the
statements of Khusi and Sahil, the daughter and son of the deceased.
They have specifically stated that the accused applicant had badly beaten
their mother and pushed her against the vehicle, therefore, she sustained
head injuries. In this way, it was a case of homicidal death and not the
accidental death. Keeping in view of the nature of the offence, the
accused applicant who is husband of the deceased does not deserve to be
released on bail.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused
applicant and learned A.G.A.
Khushi and Sahil, the daughter and son of the accused applicant
has supported the prosecution case. Keeping in view the nature of the
offence, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application is, therefore, rejected. But the trial court is
directed to conclude the sessions trial pending against the accused
applicant expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from
the date, the certified copy of this order is produced before it.
21.01.2010
Sanjay/-