Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46492 of 2018 Applicant :- Arjun Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nigamendra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Arjun Sharma seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2018 ( State Vs. Arjun Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 552 of 2018, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Khurja Nagar, District-Bulandshahr, now said to be pending in the Court of First Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Moni on 11.05.2011 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of seven years and ten days from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 21.05.2018, in which the wife of the applicant sustained burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the happening of the aforesaid occurrence, the victim was immediately rushed to J.M. Medical College, Aligarh where she ultimately scummed to the burn injuries sustained by her. Accordingly, the information about the death of the deceased was communicated at the concerned Police Station by one Mohd. Driver of the aforesaid Hospital. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the nature of death of the deceased was said to be homicidal. The post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 21.08.2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to shock as a result of ante- mortem thermal burn injury. According to the opinion of the doctor, the deceased had sustained about 95% superficial to deep burn injury all over the body.
The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 22.08.2018, by the father of the deceased namely Vishnu, which came to be registered as Case Crime No.0552 of 2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahr.
In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons, namely, Arjun Sharma, husband of the deceased, Banwarilal, father-in-law of the deceased and Dharma, Dewar of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet only against the husband and father-in-law of the deceased. The Dewar of the deceased, namely, Dharma has been excluded. Upon the submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet cognizance was taken by the court concerned and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2018 (State Vs. Arjun Sharma and others) came to be registered, which is now said to be pending in the Court of First Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. On date, ten prosecution witnesses on fact have been examined.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 24.05.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is then submitted that the first information report was lodged against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C. but the case was subsequently converted under Section 306 I.P.C.. P.W.-I and P.W.-II, who are the first informant and the father of the deceased as well as the brother of the deceased have not supported the prosecution story as narrated in the first information report. Up to this stage, there is no such evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the present applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of alleged crime. Consequently, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the deceased is the wife of the present applicant and has died at her matrimonial home i.e. in the house of the present applicant. Therefore, the burden is on the present applicant himself to explain the manner of occurrence. Up to this stage, the applicant has failed to discharge his obligation. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. It is then submitted that the trial arising out of the aforesaid case crime number is itself at an advance stage and the interest of justice would be served in case a direction is issued to the trial court to expeditiously conclude the trial rather than considering the bail application of the present applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as 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 application 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 applicants 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 :- 18.12.2018 Pkb/