Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41432 of 2021 Applicant :- Anarkali Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kumar Singh,Dharnidhar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjai Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anarkali, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 190 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused- applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Manjeeta. It is argued while placed para 18 of the affidavit that the deceased was a short tampered lady and was pressurizing her husband- Sandeep to live separately from his parents. Husband of the deceased was living in Mumbai and was working there and was unable to take her there due to financial conditions but since he refused the same, she committed suicide. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide which is evident from the fact that the room in which her body was found hanging was bolted from inside. It is further submitted that even the post mortem report is suggestive of sucide as the doctor has found a ligature mark on her body and the cause of death is opined as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is further argued that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the deceased had committed suicide and the implication of the applicant and other co-accused persons in the present case is false and concocted. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is languishing in jail since 26.02.2021.
Per contra Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the husband of the deceased was in Mumbai at the time of the incident and the present applicant was present in the house. It is further argued that the dead body was found hanging on a rope from the ventilator but her legs were on the floor. It is argued that as such the ground of suicide does not appear to be true. It is further argued that the deceased was having a pregnancy and was opined by the Doctor to be having a gravid uterus of about mid term with male body of length 14 cm. It is argued that in the stage of pregnancy of mid term the suicide by a women would not be probable. It is further argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there is an allegation against her. Her presence there is even fortified from the fact that she gave an information to the police about the death of her daughter-in-law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and the argument that the door of the room was bolted from inside does not impress the court as there was another opening being the ventilator, the place from where the deceased was found to be hanging. The deceased was found to be having a pregnancy of mid term. The presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence is not disputed. Before the trial court the defence taken was different and before this Court the defence taken is all together different. The shifting defences also do not help the applicant in any manner.
The bail application is thus, rejected.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Abhishek Singh