Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37656 of 2018 Applicant :- Bal Kishan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Geetam Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant filed 2nd supplementary affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Bal Kishan seeking his enlargement on bail in Session Trial No. 70 of 2018 (State Vs. Bal Kishan) under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kasganj, District-Kasganj, arising out of Case Crime No.1121 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kasganj, District-Kasganj during the pendency of the trial.
4. Perused the record.
5. It transpires form the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Shashi on 24.02.2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, after the expiry of a period of three years and nine months from the date of the marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 20.12.2017, in which the wife of the applicant, namely, Shashi sustained burn injuries. It is the case of the applicant that immediately upon happening of the occurrence, the victim was taken to the District Hospital from where, she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Ultimately, the victim succumbed to her injuries at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 22.12.2017. During this interregnum, neither the statement of the deceased was recorded nor the deceased gave her dying declaration. The inquest of body of the deceased was conducted on 22.12.2017 on the information given by the present applicant, namely, Bal Kishan. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterised as homicidal. The learned A.G.A on the basis of the material, which forms part of the Case Diary, submits that the post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.12.2017 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem thermal flame burn injures involving 98% of total body surface area of the deceased. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 22.12.2017, i.e., after two days of the occurrence, by the brother of the deceased, namely, Sri Ram Babu, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 1121 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kasganj, District-Kasganj.
6. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Bal Kishan-husband, Premwati-mother-in-law, Guddi Devi- Nanad, Arvind-Devar and Subhash-Devar of the deceased were nominated as named accused. A perusal of the F.I.R. will further go to show that allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for demand of dowry have specifically been levelled. 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 dated 05.02.2018 only against two persons, namely, the husband (the applicant herein) and the mother-in-law- Premwati of the deceased. Rest of the named accused have been excluded. Upon 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, Session Trial No. 70 of 2018 (State Vs. Bal Kishan) came to be registered in the Court of District and Session Judge, Kasganj, which is said to be pending. During the pendency of the aforesaid trial, P.W.1- Ram Babu has been examined. It may further be noted that all the other accused have been enlarged on bail during this interregnum.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is in Jail since 15.01.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she had insisted that the applicant must take the deceased to his place of work at New Delhi. However, on refusal of the applicant to take the deceased alongwith him at his place of work at New Delhi, she out of sheer frustration committed self immolation. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. Thus, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the occurrence has taken place just after three years and nine months from the date of marriage of the applicant. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is a charge-sheeted accused under Section 304B I.P.C. as such presumption is available to the prosecution. Explanation offered by the applicant at this stage in proof of his innocence appears to be improbable and therefore, not liable to be accepted. The occurrence has taken place in the house of the present applicant as per site plan, photocopy of which is on record at page 40 of the paper-book. The place of occurrence is shown as the courtyard, which is an open area in the house. Referring to the post-mortem of the deceased, learned A.G.A. submits that the Doctor has further found presence of smell of Kerosene on the body of the deceased. In the light of the circumstances as noted above, it is thus urged that the death of the deceased cannot be said to be suicidal but, prima-facie, appears to be homicidal. Consequently, it is vehemently urged that the bail application of the applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of 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 applicant is hereby rejected.
10. 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.
11. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 YK