JUDGMENT
Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Pappu @ Durgpal who is the Jeth of the deceased Manoj Kumari has filed this bail application in Case Crime No. 225/04, Under Section 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.
2. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
K.K.Dwivedi in support of the bail prayer of the present applicant and the learned A.G.A. in opposition.
3. The prosecution allegation against the applicant as is culled out from the F.I.R. (Annexure
A-1) to the affidavit is that the sister of the informant, Manoj Kumari (deceased) was married on 8.6.03 to Laukush Verma, the younger brother of the present applicant. The family members of the deceased were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they were demanding Maruti Car instead of Motorcycle. For the nonfulfilment of the dowry the deceased was tortured by Tej Singh Verma, father-in-law, Jeth Dori Lal, Pappu (present applicant), Jethani Guddi and Lavkush Verma, She was also assaulted because of the nonfulfilment of the said dowry. The deceased had expressed her apprehension of being annihilated. Consequently, the informant had left his younger sister Km. Manorma with the deceased. On 31.5.04 at 1 P.M. Smt. Manoj Kumari (deceased) was squeezed by her husband Laukush Verma, father-in-law Tej Singh, Jeth Dori Lal, Pappu, Jethani Guddi and dragged her inside the room. The sister of the deceased Km. Manorma meanwhile woke up and tried to raise the shouts but she was caught hold by Jethani. Tej Singh, father-in law, Dori Lal Jeth and Pappu caught hold the limbs of the deceased and Laukush, her husband throttled her to death and subsequently burnt her corpse to obliterate the evidence. Km. Manorma escaped and reached the informant on 1.6.04 and informed about the incident to the informant. The informant went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. on 5.6.04 at 1 P.M. in respect of the said incident.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant contended that in this case the F.I.R. is delayed by 5 days which is unreasonable and for which no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. He further contended that there is no evidence of unnatural death and in fact the deceased died due to illness. He further submitted that the applicant has been assigned only the role of catching hold of the limbs of the deceased and it was the husband Laukush who is alleged to have throttled her to death. He further submitted that the conduct of the husband of throttling to the deceased in presence of her younger sister is highly unnatural and cannot be accepted. He further submitted that Km. Manorma the witness of the prosecution along with the other persons have filed their affidavits denying the incident and have stated that the deceased was taken to Amit Jaggi Memorial Hospital and subsequently she was taken to Aurvedic Hospital Banguri. It is stated that on 1.6.04 at 5 P.M. the condition of the deceased deteriorated all of a sudden and she was taken to the Nurshing Home at Khurja but in the midway she lost her breath. She has further testified that the death of the deceased was natural and nobody murdered here. She has further testified that her signatures were obtained on the pretext of taking loan and that after the death of the deceased her parents reached at in-laws house of the deceased. In support of the contention regarding the death of the deceased, some medical prescriptions have been filed along with the bail application.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that in this case the deceased has been tortured for insufficient dowry within 7 years of the marriage and approximately
within a year she was throttled to death by her husband and the present applicant along with his brother who has facilitated the said throttling by pressing the limbs of the deceased. He further contended that the affidavit filed by Km. Manorma and other persons is of no consequence inasmuch as the said affidavits are indicative of tempering the evidence. He contended that statement Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Km. Manorama which was recorded soon after lodging of the
F.I.R. Km. Manorma has supported the F.I.R. version in toto. From the case diary he has produced the aforesaid statement Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Km Manorma for perusal. Learned A.G.A. further contended that it was an unnatural death and the dead body of the deceased was cremated in a hurried manner and Km. Manorma is an eye witness of the whole incident.
6. I have considered the rival arguments of both sides and have gone through the materials on the record. It is an admitted case that the deceased has lost his life just after a year of her marriage. According to the F.I.R. as well as the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Km. Manorma her body was cremated to obliterate the evidence. Km. Manorma is an eye witnesss of the said incident. And she has annointed the role of catching hold to the present applicant. The informant has given an explanation in his 161 statement for the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. as he wanted to come to the truth of the matter from Tej Singh and others and then the F.I.R. was lodged. From the above facts stated above, I do not consider it a fit case to grant bail to the present applicant.
7. The prayer of bail by the applicant Pappu alias Durgpal stands rejected.