Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15000 of 2021 Applicant :- Chhote Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh,Jitendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Chhote Lal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act P.S.- Gajraula, District-Pilibhit, during pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that marriage of Leelawati, daughter of first informant, Radhey Shyam was solemnized with applicant- Chhote Lal on 06.03.2016. From the aforesaid wedlock, no issue was born. After expiry of a period of four years and approximately six months from the date of marriage of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 02.09.2020 when wife of applicant namely Leelawati died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. Information regarding death of deceased at concerned police station was not given by applicant or any of his family members but by Radhy Shyam i.e. father of deceased. Subsequently, inquest of the body of deceased was conducted on 2.09.2020. In the opinion of panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of deceased. The post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 02.09.2020. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death of deceased was Asphyxia due to Ante-Mortem Hanging. The Autopsy Surgeon further found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:
"1. An oblique ligature mark (30cm. x 4cm.) present on all around the neck above thyroid cartilage in front of neck passing obliques upward and backward along the line of mandible and is interrupted by 4 cm. on back of neck. Ligature mark situated 1 cm below on right side of ear lobule and 6cm. below left ear lobule and 5 cm. below chin.
Base of groove at ligature mark is yellowish hard Parchment like on opens subcutaneous areas tissue underneeth the mark is dry, white hard sticking."
5. Thereafter, a delayed F.I.R. dated 03.09.2020 was lodged by first informant, Radhey Shyam and was registered as Case Crime No. 270 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act P.S.- Gajraula, District-Pilibhit. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons, namely, Chhote Lal (husband), Hemraj (Jeth), Gayadeen (Devar), Pooran Lal (father-in-law), Malti Devi (Jethani) and Narainee Devi (mother-in-law) of deceased were nominated as named accused.
6. In brief, according to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. dated 03.09.2020, it is alleged that named accused are guilty of causing death of Leelawati, daughter of first informant on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of motorcycle.
7. Subsequent to the aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.. Upon completion of investigation , Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 29.10.2020 whereby five of the named accused were exculpated whereas applicant-Chhote Lal, (husband of deceased) has been charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Ac, P.S.- Gajraula, District-Pilibhit. What has happened subsequent to the submission of charge- sheet has not been detailed in the affidavit filed in support present bail application. Learned counsel for applicant further failed to detail the same during course of hearing.
8. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is husband of deceased but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforesaid case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. No conviction of applicant is possible on the allegations made in F.I.R. Applicant has criminal history but same has been explained in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. Applicant has been acquitted in the criminal case pending against him. Applicant is in Jail since 26.09.2020. As such, on date applicant has undergone one year and three months of incarceration. Allegations made in F.I.R. regarding additional demand of motorcycle have been made only to give colour to the F.I.R. There is nothing on record to show that physical/mental cruelty was committed upon deceased on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of motorcycle. No criminal proceedings were ever initiated against applicant regarding above. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial.
9. It is next submitted that from the wedlock of applicant and deceased, no issue was born. On this account, deceased was under frustration. Deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. He has then referred to post-mortem report of the body of deceased and on basis thereof, he contends that bonafide of applicant is also explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of deceased. It is submitted that after the death of deceased, information was given to first informant who is also a panch witness. As such, F.I.R. has been engineered to falsely implicate the applicant.. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the present bail application. Learned A.G.A. contends that applicant is husband of deceased. Placing reliance upon Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act., learned A.G.A. submits that there is presumption against applicant and burden is upon applicant to discharge that burden. Up to this stage, applicant has failed to discharge this burden. Occurrence has taken place in the house of applicant, as such burden. is upon applicant to explain the manner of occurrence in terms of Section 106 of Evidence Act. Same has not been explained. Apart from above, applicant has failed to explain as to why, no information of the alleged incident was given at the concerned police station. Learned A.G.A. has referred to Sections 39 and 174 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted by learned A.G.A. that police upon investigation of concerned case crime number has ultimately submitted a charge-sheet against applicant whereby applicant has been charged sheeted under Sections 498A, 304B I.P..C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. As such, prima facie, evidence exists on record against applicant. It is lastly contended that abetment can be gathered from the conduct of the accused. Learned A.G.A. has invited attention of the Court to the statement of first informant recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of above learned A.G.A. contends that physical and mental cruelty was committed upon deceased for non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry. He further contends that first informant in his aforesaid statement has further stated that in order to resolve the aforesaid issue, Panchayat was held. Statement given by first informant has not been disputed in the affidavit filed in support of present bail application. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.
10. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of evidence on record, accusation made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, present application for bail is liable to be rejected.
11. Accordingly, present application for bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 YK