Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41210 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Chandan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun, during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized on 20.05.2017 with Smt. Poonam. However, just after the expiry of a period of ten months and five days from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 26.03.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died by committing suicide. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 26.03.2018 on the information not given by the applicant or any of his family members but by the father of the deceased. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 27.03.2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is, after the expiry of a period of five days from the date of occurrence i.e. on 01.04.2018, that an F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased which was registered as Case Crime No. 0074 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, the husband Chandan, Pankaj (Devar), Sant Ram (Father-in-law), Veer Kunwar Devi (Mother-in-law) and Babita (Nanad) 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 of Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge sheet on 05.05.2018 against four of the named accused persons. The Nanad, namely, Babita has been excluded.
Learned A.G.A. submits that the cognizance has been taken but the date of the cognizance taking order is not illegible from the perusal of the photo copy of the charge sheet which has been sent to him.
Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to dispute the submissions made by the learned A.G.A. However, it may be noted that what has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order, has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is a young man and he is jail since 10.04.2018. All the co-accused have been enlarged on bail. He further submits that as per the recital contained in the F.I.R., no specific role has been assigned to the applicant as the cause of death to behind the occurrence. He, therefore, submits that the applicant is innocent. The post- morterm report clearly suggest that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. Except for the ligature mark found on the body of the deceased, no other external injuries have been found on her body. There is no suicidal note of the deceased to even remotely suggest that the applicant has been abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. Placing reliance upon the averments made in the F.I.R., he further submits that the applicant is innocent as the marriage of the brother of the applicant could not be solemnized with the sister of the deceased and on account of aforesaid frustration, the deceased has committed suicide. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submission, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that presumption is available to the prosecution as the offence complained of is punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. The burden is now upon the applicant to rebut the presumption arising out of an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.. Up to this stage, there is no such material available on record on the basis of which, it can be presumed that the applicant has been able to rebut the presumption standing against him. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, it is thus, strenuously urged that no case for bail is made out, and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record and without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands 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 applicant 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 :- 29.10.2018 Rahul.