Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39769 of 2018 Applicant :- Ainuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Gour Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Vijay Singh Gour, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Ainudding seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2016 (State Vs. Ainnuddin) arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Baberu, District-Banda pending in the court of the Sessions Judge, Banda.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Kismatunisha on 29.05.2014 in accordance with the Muslim Rites and Customs. However, before even the expiry of a period of two years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 21/22.05.20185 in which the wife of the applicant consumed something leading her in a serious condition. From the aforesaid wedlock, a son is said to have been born, who is said to be aged about six months on the date of occurrence, i.e., 21.05.2016. It is the case of the applicant that the victim was immediately taken to the Primary Health Centre, Baberu and thereafter, to the District Hospital, Banda on 22.05.2016 but she was declared to have been brought dead. The information of the same was given by the ward boy of the District Hospital to the concerned police station and subsequently, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.05.2016 on the aforesaid information. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.05.2016. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, could not give any definite opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased and therefore, the viscera of the deceased was preserved. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 24.05.2016 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0094 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Baberu, District-Banda.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely, Ainuddin (the husband), Zaibu Nisha (the mother-in-law), Akhtari and Rahwari (the Nanads) of deceased were nominated as named accused. Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number under Section XII Cr.P.C. submitted a charge-sheet dated 16.11.2017 only against the present applicant, who is the husband of the deceased. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned on 19.11.2016. Consequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2016 (State Vs. Ainuddin) came to be registered in the Court of Sessions Judge, Banda. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, as on date P.W.-1, the father of the deceased, has already been examined.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young man and is in jail since 22.08.2016. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. Inviting the attention of the Court to the viscera report of the deceased, he submits that the deceased has died by consuming Aluminium Phosphide. There is no evidence on record upto this stage on the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant has even abetted in the commission of the crime. It is also urged that from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased a son was born six months prior to the date of occurence. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there could hardly be any reason for the present applicant to force the deceased to commit suicide. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the applicant is innocent and therefore, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the incident in question has taken place within a period of seven years from the date of marriage of the deceased. Therefore, presumption is in favour of the prosecution. The applicant has, however, failed to discharged the burden, which is required to be discharged in terms of Section 304B I.P.C.. The deceased has commited suicide even before the expirty of a period of two years from the date of marriage, which circumstance remain unexplained upto this stage. It is also submitted that the trial is at advanced stage and P.W.-1, i.e., the father of the deceased has already been examined. It is thus urged that the instead of considering the bail application of the applicant on merits, the interest of justice shall be better served in case a direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the trial itself. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that no case for bail is made out. The bail application of the applicant is thus liable to be rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record and the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow the present application. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within one year provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 YK