The absence of specific allegations, nature of evidence, and post mortem report indicating death by hanging influenced the court's decision to grant bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Hom Narayan Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Kiran Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The applicant Shakuntala Devi Alias Madhuri has moved the present bail application seeking bail in case crime No. 360 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first information report has been lodged with delay of about five days without giving any plausible explanation. The applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. The applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of applicant’s son and deceased was solemnized on 25.02.2020. The relation between the deceased and the son of the applicant was cordial except some minor dispute which always happens between husband and wife. As per the version of FIR general allegation regarding additional demand of dowry in the form of Rs. two lacs and a Maruti Car and causing cruelty to the deceased was made against the applicant and her other family members named in the FIR and no specific allegation for the same was made against the applicant or her family members named in the FIR. Prior to the alleged incident no any complaint was ever made either by the deceased or her parents to any of the authorities regarding additional demand of dowry or causing cruelty to the deceased by the applicant or her family members named in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant was living separately from the deceased and his son, as is evident from the Parivar Register, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this bail application. The applicant could never be the beneficiary of the additional demand of dowry in the form of one Maturti Car and Rs. 2 lac cash. The deceased was a short tempered lady and was annoyed with her husband as her husband was spending money in the medical treatment of his father and was not fulfilling her lavish wishes, that is why the deceased was living under stress and mental depression and on the date of incident the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with sari from the hook installed in ceiling of the room. The husband of the deceased informed the son of the complainant namely Satyam on phone about the alleged incident.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that at the time of inquest of the corpse of the deceased, the family members of the complainant and the applicant were present. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted. The cause of death of deceased was Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging only with one ligature mark and except one ligature mark there is no any other injury found on the body of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. In support of his argument, learned counsel of the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence wherein definition of hanging has been described and as per the post mortem report of the deceased it is almost identical to the definition of hanging given in Modi’s Jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that since as per the Modi’s jurisprudence and as per the post mortem report of the deceased they both are identical, it it is a case of hanging and not of murder or strangulation.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and, therefore, giving benefit of the judg