Court No. - 18 Case :- BAIL No. - 5764 of 2010 Petitioner :- Saidulla (Sayeed Ullah) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Mukul Rakesh,Jaleel Ahmad Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Court is taken on record.
Rejoinder-affidavit has already been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material on record.
The submissions of the applicant’ counsel are that, as per prosecution case,
deceased was killed by her husband the applicant, with a rope on 10.03.2009
at about 6.30 p.m., and her post-mortem examination was conducted after
about 18 ½ hours of the incident on 11.03.2009 at 1.00 p.m., but the
observation of the doctor about the presence of rigor mortis in the upper and
lower extremities makes the time of incident doubtful as the rigor martis is
started passing out after 12 hours of the death. He further submitted that the
doctor has also opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-
mortem strangulation, but the presence of a gap of 5 cm. in the ligature mark
at the back of neck of the deceased also makes the prosecution story doubtful
because if the deceased was strangulated by pressing her neck with a rope,
such a gap would not occur. It is also submitted that the applicant is having
enmity with Mustakeem.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail and submitted that the applicant’s 12 years
old son has given an eye witness account of the incident saying that his
mother was killed by the applicant with a rope. He also submitted that there is
strong motive for the applicant to cause the death of his wife as he was
suspecting her character and soon after the incident, the applicant was seen
running away from his house by witness, Mustakeem.
Learned A.G.A. stated at Bar, on the basis of instructions received, that the
statement of the doctor, who had conducted the autopsy, has not been
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C..
At this stage, it does not appear necessary to call for further clarification of
the autopsy doctor in respect of his report about the presence of rigor mortis
and the manner in which the gap found in the ligature mark could have
appeared.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation and role of
the applicant, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for bail.
Application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 30.7.2010
ank