Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54577 of 2019 Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nidhi Singh,Lal Mani Singh,Sushil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashank Tripathi
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Lal Mani Singh Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant, Shashank Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused of the record.
The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.818 of 2017 under Section 323, 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section3/4 of D.P.Act, Police Station- Ghatampur, District- Kanpur nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail during the pendency of trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased against the applicant and his family members with the allegation that the marriage of the applicant with his daughter Anubha @ Soni was solemnized on 5.3.2017 and the informant has spent about 10 lacs in the marriage but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied rather they demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) as additional dowry in order to settle the applicant in business which the daughter of the informant has refused the same. Subsequently, on 14.9.2017, the accused applicant informed the son of the informant that accident took place with the daughter of the informant when they were on the motorcycle for treatment in the hospital thereafter, son of the informant and his family members reached at the hospital but they did not find the deceased in the hospital and went to the applicant's village where he found that the daughter of the deceased is no more and has been killed by the accused persons. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 15.9.2017, in which, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased..
“1. L.W. 4 x 2 cm Lt. side skull 7 cm above Lt. eyebrow.
2. Contused swelling- 8 x 5 Lt. Temporal parieatal joint above Lt. ear under bone fractured.
3. Contusion 13 x 8 cm Lt. side face On disection-haematoma present in skin and muscle Lt. side face (cheek).
4. Contused swelling 10 x 8 cm rt. Side neck, 3 cm below Rt. ear.
On dissection hematoma present in skin and muscle.
5. Abraided contusion 7x4 cm Lt. Forearm just below Lt. Elbow joint.
6. Contusion-3x2 cm Lt upper arm 10 cm below Lt. Top of Lt. shoulder joint.
7. Contusion-2x1 cm in rt. 7Cm below top of rt. shoulder joint.”
As per the postmortem report, cause of death was due to ante-mortem injuries and head injures which was caused by hard and blunt object. It is next submitted that wife of the applicant is five months pregnant and while going on motorcycle for checkup in the hospital, an accident took place as a result thereof, she sustained injuries resulting into her death. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 22.9.2017 and there is no prospect for early conclusion of trial as only the statement of one witness (informant) P.W.-1 has been recorded.
On the other hand learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed bail prayer and submitted that the daughter of the informant has been murdered by the applicant within six months and 10 days which is very serious abhorrent and terrifying and there is presumption against the applicant under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that neither the accident was taken place nor was reported by the applicant anywhere, the injury received by the deceased is not accidental which was caused by hard and blunt object as apparent from the postmortem report. It is next submitted that doctor prescription and sonography report has been fabricated and there is indication of any pregnancy in the postmortem report and in these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application and also looking to the seriousness of the allegations as made in the FIR, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided as expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220.
It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.
Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :-25.10.2021 Akbar