Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15707 of 2021
Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Deepak Dubey, Gyanendra Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey appearing for the complainant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The applicant being brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased Ms. Gunjan @ Gudiya facing prosecution in connection with case crime no. 254 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia and is in jail since 16.08.2020.
The brief summary of the prosecution story as placed by learned counsel for the applicant, that one Deena Nath Singh, father of the deceased has got the FIR registered on 14.08.2020 at P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia at 14:23 hours for the incident said to have been taken place at 08:00 hours on the same day under the aforesaid sections of the IPC.
It is borne out from the FIR that informant's daughter Ms. Gunjan Singh @ Gudiya was got married with Suneet Kumar Singh @ Pankaj on 09.02.2019 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. Usual allegations related to dowry atrocities were levelled in the FIR that as per the prevailing practice in the society, the informant has performed his daughter's marriage with all fan fair and prevalent ceremonies. In this it has been mentioned that, he has given sufficient amount of dowry and gifts to her daughter, according to his capacity and worth. The allegations made in the FIR is that, the husband and in- laws were not satisfied with the amount, articles, ornaments given to the newly wedded couple and on this score, the deceased was constant target of maltreatment, harassment and taunts by named accused persons. Not only this, they were consistently demanding for extra, additional amount of dowry from her, in the shape of "Brezza" four wheeler car. Informant told his counter part that right now he is not in a position to give the said car and for want of additional dowry she was constantly assaulted by her husband and in-laws. On 13.08.2020, the deceased has given an information to her parent, sharing the dowry related atrocities faced by her from her own husband & other in-laws. After having this news, the informant and his family members rushed to meet her daughter on 14.08.2020 to her matrimonial place, where they were informed that named accused persons have jointly assaulted her and done to death for want of additional dowry and her dead body was laying hanging.
After this unfortunate incident, her inquest was prepared by the police, which shows that the information to the police was given by one Kamlesh Kumar, Ward Boy on 14.08.2020, after which the police squad reached on the spot and completed the formalities of inquest. The inquest report further reveals that after holding primary investigation with regard to the place of incident and her body, it was found that her neck was stretched and the face was looking upward. Though her body was hanged with the ceiling fan, however, it was resolved, to ascertain true and real cause of the death, the dead body of the deceased be transmitted to her autopsy.
The following are the salient features of the autopsy report of deceased:-
Smt. Gunjan Singh @ Gudiya was a lady aged about 24 years.
Her eye and mouth were closed, however tongue, nails, finger and face were cyanosed. R.M. present of both upper limbs.
Ante mortem injury of ligature mark horizontally, contusion around the neck below the thyroid.
Abrasion and ecchymosis around ligature mark subcutaneous.
Hyoid Bone was found fractured and as per the opinion of the doctor the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation.
On these factual pictures, learned Counsel has floated his submission while considered the bail application of the applicant, who is brother-in-law (jeth) of the deceased. These submissions are formulated for the sake of convenience follows:-
(1) From the FIR, the entire family of the husband Suneet Kumar Singh @ Pankaj has been roped in by the informant irrespective of their inter-se relationship and their respective role in the commission of the offence attributing a general and omnibus role to all of them, related to dowry atrocities.
(2) The informant is not an eye witness to the incident but as per the prevailing practise in the society it seems that out of sheer revenge the entire family of the husband has been implicated in the offence.
(3) The applicant before this Court, is coming from rural backgrounds village Haiwakpur, District Ballia and is not related to the internal matters of his brother Suneet Kumar Singh. All the named accused persons who are related to the husband, unanimously demanding 'Brezza Car' from the deceased and for this purpose, she was maltreated and harassed during her life time and thereafter she was done to death on account of asphyxia, this by itself sounds wizard.
(4) It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as mentioned above, the applicant is brother-in-law and he along with his wife lives separately from his brother Suneet Kumar Singh @ Pankaj and the deceased. It is highly unlikely that he would demand, a particular brad of the Car like 'Brezza' from his sister-in- law (bhayahoo) and harass her on this score. According to learned counsel that this allegation does not appeal to reason or arose confidence in this prosecution story.
It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the attending features of post mortem report clearly indicate that she has committed suicide and thus questioned the opinion of the doctor. learned Advocate, strenuously canvassed that the deceased had died on account of hanging and not by strangulation, as opined by the doctor. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the husband could be best suited beneficiary of the alleged additional dowry in the shape of 'Brezza Car' who is still behind the bars. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant resides separately and having no concern with internal matters of his brother Suneet Kumar Singh, as is evident from the certificate issued by Village Pradhan Maya Singh dated 12.10.2020, annexed at page No. 57 of the paper book of this bail application, and the deceased has committed suicide on account of certain depression of her own.
The learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the present applicant has parity of bail with co-accused Smt. Kamalawati Singh, the mother-in-law of the deceased, who has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 06.01.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42886 of 2020 (Kamalwati Singh Vs. State of U.P.) as well as co-accused Sher Singh, who has also been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 28.07.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42920 of 2020.
Thus, on this above grounds, it has been prayed by learned counsel for the applicant that taking into totality of the circumstances that the applicant be released on bail. Per contra Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State refuted the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, tooth and nail by mentioning that the husband and her in-laws are greedy persons for additional dowry to their core and thus they deserves no sympathy.
In this regard learned counsel for the informant has pointed out certain issues which are as under:-
(a) That on the eve of marriage of Suneet Kumar Singh (husband), Rs. 2.50 lakhs were transferred from the account of Dabloo Singh, the brother of the deceased, in the account of co-accused Kamlawati Singh. The deceased died on account of strangulation by her neck and thus, it cannot be suggested that it is handy work of an individual. It was a collective effort of all the named accused persons including the husband and present applicant in this abhorring offence. No one could be singled out, who has got lesser role or guilt.
(b) There is no denial of the fact that the deceased has died under the mysterious circumstances within seven years of her marriage at her marital place and thus the presumption of Section 113 of the Evidence Act would go against him (brother-in-law of the deceased).
(c) It is further contended that the applicant being eldest in the family and captain of the ship and therefore, he has a binding duty to maintain the order in the house and to see that no untoward incident would take place at his place and on this score, the applicant has miserably failed. His own daughter-in-law with 1-1/2 years of marriage was done to death at her matrimonial place and thus he cannot absolve from his liability.
(d) Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, strongly refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant by which it was argued that the deceased have committed suicide by hanging herself for the reasons best known to her. It was argued, that place of ligature mark around her neck coupled with the fact that her hyoid bone was found fractured are typical signs of strangulation and nor hanging simplicitor and thus to even suggest that deceased has committed suicide by hanging is an absurd proposition.
I have keenly heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the FIR which was promptly registered on the same day i.e. 14.08.2020. It has been submitted that marriage was solemnized in the month of February 2019 and this unfortunate incident took place in August 2020 within 1- 1/2 years of her marriage. But from the text of the FIR, it has been mentioned that there was a demand of four wheeler in a shape of 'Brezza Car', it is highly unlikely and unswallowable proposition that the present applicant coming from a rural background and is living separately, would demand a particular brand of four wheeler and for this the entire family would harass and tease her on this account. This allegation seems to be more dramatic and artificial and has been incorporated for the purpose and motive. There was no injury over her person, suggestive of the fact that there was no physical assault or maar- peet with the deceased prior to the incident. Similarly, this fact also indicates that there was no mark of any struggle by the lady to save her from the clutches of the alleged assailants. So far as deposit of Rs. 2.50 lakhs in the account of co-accused Smt. Kamalawati Singh in the eve of marriage of his son is concerned, there could not be denial of this fact that this social menace is still prevailing in our society despite of stringent enactment in this regard. But to suggest that there was demand of four wheeler in the shape of particular car, seems to be unrealistic exaggeration of the incident. As mentioned above, that general and omnibus role has been attributed to all the family members in commission of the offence including the applicant. By no stretch of imagination, the applicant could not said to be beneficiary of that Brezza Car. It is husband, who is still facing incarceration, is the best suited beneficiary of that four wheeler car. After the submission of charge sheet, it seems that there is no requirement of any "custodial interrogation" of the applicant as the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is true that the adverse presumption is against the applicant,
in accordance with the Section 113 of the Evidence Act. But at present the Court is considering the bail application of brother-in-law (jeth). Entire desired material yet to be brought on record to retest the statutory presumption fastened against husband and her in-laws. In absence of those material the Court, cannot dump all the accused persons in jail during trial, which would not be going to culminate in near future. Thus it would be highly risky and unreasonable to put the accused person/applicant behind the bars as the same would be against the spirit of jurisprudence of bail.
Taking into account and the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, his age and the alleged demand of additional dowry of Brezza Car, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, However, it is made clear that the case of the husband Suneet Kumar Singh @ Pankaj would be judged on its own merit.
Let the applicant – Amit Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS IS/ARE DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra- ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Faridul Hasan/LBY