Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed a plea by man from Poonch, accused of killing his wife over dowry.
As per the police, the deceased woman, Shaheen Akhter was married to one Sami Ullah in 2012. After the marriage, their relationship did not remain cordial and Sami Ullah allegedly started maltreating her. A case under Section 498-A RPC was registered against Sami Ullah for the ill treatment meted out to the Akhter. Thereafter, they arrived at an amicable settlement in which Sami Ullah assured Akhtar that he will not subject her to any torture, whereafter she went to her matrimonial home. However, the agony of the Akhter did not end here. She was again subjected to beating by Sami Ullah under the pretext that she could not fetch dowry from her parental home. At the time of marriage, prosecution said an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was fixed as Dower of which, an amount of Rs.1 lakh only was paid to Akhter in the form of jewellery and the balance amount reckoned and calculated at Rs.9 lakhs was fixed as deferred dower. Prosecution said that Akhter wanted to put an end to the marriage by a divorce but Sami Ullah avoided the matter for the reason that he had to pay the Dower on the anvil of divorce. Therefore, she was neither divorced nor did her agony end and she was subjected to continuous torture. Finally on the fateful night intervening between 12/13 December, 2013, Sami Ullah and other co-accused in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy put Akhter to death by strangulating her and after concealing the body for some time threw it in a river at Ari Mendhar. It was on the 4 January 2014 that the body of the deceased was fished out of the said Nallah.
Counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the police version and therefore, the accused are entitled to be admitted to bail.
“What requires to be reiterated in answer to this argument is, that a major chunk of the witnesses have not been examined as yet, and it cannot be assumed or presumed as to how and in what manner the prosecution case will tilt after their examination in the court and above all the appreciation of the prosecution evidence is in the domain and power of the trial Judge,” a bench o Justice M K Hanjura said while dismissing the bail application.
“The other aspect of the case which cannot be lost sight of is that in a case of murder grant of bail is not the rule. Public policy, societal concerns and the general state of crime of such a nature are allied considerations which should weigh with the court while dealing with an application for bail. In view of the demands of the public policy courts are loath to release the offenders on bail in a horrendous crime of murder subject to exceptions,” the court said, adding, “Grant of bail in a case of murder not based on merits will neither save the ends of Justice and law nor of the society at large. The present scenario where the cases of murder are on an increase cannot afford to be liberal.”
Judicial health and discipline demands that reasons which are conducive should be spelt out while determining and deciding an application for bail as otherwise it is bound to considerably affect the administration of justice, the court said. “The moral fibre of the society cannot be allowed to be weakened by passing reckless orders in a petition seeking bail in a case of murder. Liberty of those who are law abiding has to be treated on a higher pedestal than the ones who break the law as they themselves relinquish and damage it. The arms of law cannot be allowed to be twisted. Mischievous elements cannot be allowed to go on a rampage destroying everything in their view,” the court said and dismissed the bail plea o the accused persons.
==Ends==
