Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25871 of 2021 Applicant :- Amrish Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Amrish Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 455 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that co-accused who is the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the court below, copy of the order is annexed as annexure 3 to the affidavit. It is argued that the trial in the present case is under progress in which six prosecution witnesses have been examined and all the witnesses have been declared hostile. Copies of the said statements are annexed as annexure 2 to the affidavit who have been placed before the Court. It is argued that the present First Information Report has been lodged with false and concocted averments as is evident from the fact that although in First Information Report as many as five accused persons were named including the applicant but the Investigating Officer during investigation found the involvement of jethani, nand and nandoi of the deceased to be false and as such he exonerated them from the present case. It is argued that now the constable police and the Investigating Officer are only to be examined before the trial court and as such there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence at all. It is argued that since all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case the implication of the applicant is false and incorrect. It is further argued that the deceased died a natural death after suffering from heart attack as she was a patient of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder since childhood. It is argued that the first informant and other family members of the deceased were informed from the side of the applicant and they attended the cremation of the deceased but even then the First Information Report has been registered with a delay of five days which is also goes to show that the same is an afterthought. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 14 of the affidavit and is in jail since 24.12.2019.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the conduct of the applicant as being the husband is highly deplorable. It is argued that no information whatsoever of the death of the deceased was passed off to any of the authorities concerned and even to the family members of the deceased. It is argued that no postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted but she was cremated immediately after her death. It is argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased died due to some disease which she is said to have been suffering since childhood. It is argued that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage as the date of marriage is 06.05.2018 and the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the death is an unnatural. It is argued that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is no document on record to show that the deceased died a natural death. Death has occurred in the matrimonial house after 1 year & 6 months of the marriage. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
Looking to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to legal impediment.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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 :- 30.7.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)