Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48261 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandrabhan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Chandrabhan Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.- Chandaus, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Amit Kumar was solemnized with Shital on 16.11.2017. One fact may be noted that two real sisters, namely, Ritu and Sheetal were married to two real brothers and were residing in the same house also. However, just after the expiry of a period of nine months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 22.08.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died in mysterious circumstances. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on the same day i.e. 22.08.2018 by the father of the deceased, namely, Rajkumar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 234 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-
Chandaus, District- Aligarh.
In the aforesaid first information report, three persons, namely, Amit Kumar- husband, Chandrabhan Singh- father-in-law and Pappi- mother-in-law of the deceased were nominated as named accused. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 22.08.2018 on the information of the first informant. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.08.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante-
mortem strangulation. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted a charge-sheet dated 16.11.2018 against all the three named accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 23.08.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The mother-in-law of the deceased, who is similarly circumstanced, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.12.2018. It is then submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she had a quarrel with her husband in which the unfortunate incident occurred. As such, the present applicant, being the father-in-law of the deceased, 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 was a young girl aged about 22 years and she has died just after nine months from the date of her marriage at her matrimonial home. As such the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. The present applicant, though he is father-in-law of the deceased, has been charge-sheeted under Section 304B I.P.C. also. As such presumption is available to the prosecution. Therefore, the burden is upon the applicant to explain, as to how the occurrence took place, in terms of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Secondly, since the occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant, the applicant is required to explain the manner in which the incident has taken place, as per the mandate of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, up to this stage the applicant has failed to discharge the said burden. It is, thus, urged that the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
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, 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 six months 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 :- 19.12.2018 Pkb/