Shri Kant Tripathi,J.:-

1. Heard Mr. A.N. Mishra for the applicants and Mr. A.R. Dwivedi for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. These two Cr. Misc. Bail Applications No.34473 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 34006 of 2010 are being disposed of by a common order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raja, Shankar Lal and Tulsamal have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicants are also entitled for bail. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants are the father-in-law and Mother-in-law of the deceased and they used to live separate from the deceased and her husband. It was next submitted that the deceased, while taking medicine, consumed poison. She was immediately taken to District hospital, Lalitpur in the night itself, where she was hospitalized at about 2.45 A.M. by her husband but looking into her critical condition, the Doctor referred the deceased to the Medical college, Jhansi at about 4.40 A.M. but she died while she was on way to Medical college, Jhansi. It was next submitted that a general allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been made against all accused with no specific role of the applicants. It was also submitted that applicants had no concern with the alleged dowry in view of the fact that they used to live separate.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the alleged dying declaration stated in the application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been concocted on the basis of a legal advice because the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after about one month and 20 days. If there was any dying declaration, the applicant could have lodged the F.I.R. immediately after the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that a dying declaration was recorded in the hospital in which the deceased supported the story of taking of poison accidentally under misconception of its being a medicine.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants lastly submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated due to enmity and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offence.

6. Mr. A.R. Dwivedi, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court while considering Crl. Revision No. 2711 of 2007 and Crl. Misc. Writ Petition no. 14518 of 2007 passed an elaborate order dated 11.12.2007 believing the allegations made by the complainant and directing the Magistrate concerned for issuing processes, therefore, the dying declaration recorded in the hospital, which has merely a thumb impression of the deceased, though, she was an educated lady is not acceptable.

7. It was also submitted that the Bench while disposing of the aforesaid matters raised doubts regarding the genuineness of the dying declaration recorded in the hospital. But the position seems to be different, the Bench observed that in view of the fact that the trial is pending it may not be appropriate to express any opinion regarding genuineness of the dying declaration being relied on by the accused and also by the complainant. It would also not be appropriate to express any opinion otherwise on the merits of the case.

8. Mr. A.R. Dwivedi lastly submitted that dying declaration recorded in hospital is highly suspicious and the delay of about 2 hours was caused by District Hospital Lalitpur and therefore, deceased could not be provided any treatment. It appears that the deceased was discharged from district hospital at about 4.40 a.m., therefore, the delay cannot be of any material help to the complainant at this stage.

9. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail, but could not point out anything otherwise.

10. In my opinion, pirma facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

11. Moreso, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document