Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44740 of 2018 Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Devendra for seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2018 (State Versus Devendra & Others), pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIII, Budaun and arising out of Case Crime No. 0162 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hazratpur, District Budaun during the pendency of the above mentioned sessions trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Ramgeeta on 22nd May, 2017. Just after the expiry of a period of four months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred in the night of 9/10th October, 2017, in which the wife of the applicant, namely, Ramgeeta died by consuming some poisonous substance. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 10th October, 2017 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the father of the deceased, namely, Sukhpal. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of the death of the deceased. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 10th October, 2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that no definite reason could be gathered regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Consequently, the viscera of the deceased was preserved. However, the Doctor did not find any external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 10th October, 2017 by the father of the deceased, namely, Sukhpal, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0162 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hazratpur, District Budaun. In the aforesaid first information report, three persons, namely, Devendra- husband (applicant herein), Hari Ram-father-in-law and Ashok-Jeth of the deceased were nominated as the named accused and the mother-in-law of the deceased was nominated as unnamed accused. Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C., the Police submitted the charge-sheet dated 27th December, 2017 against the three named accused persons, namely father-in-law, mother-in- law and the husband (applicant herein) of the deceased. One named accused, namely, Ashok-Jeth was excluded. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 27th December, 2017, the cognizance was taken by the court concerned and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2018 (State Versus Devendra & Others) came to be registered, which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIII, Budaun. On date, three prosecution witnesses of fact, namely, P.W.-1 Sukhpal the first informant/father of the deceased, P.W.-2 Ram Devi- mother of the deceased and P.W.-3 Rajeev Pal the brother of the deceased have been examined.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is prima facie innocent. The applicant is in jail since 11th October, 2017. As such, the applicant has undergone more than one year and one month of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that three prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined till date and they have not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report. Accordingly, it is submitted that the applicant being the husband of the deceased is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused under Section 304-B I.P.C. also. As such, presumption is available to the prosecution. The deceased was a young lady and she died just after four months from the date of her marriage. As such the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. The applicant has failed to discharge the burden which is required to be discharged under Sections 106 and 313 of the Indian Evidence Act for an offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. upto this stage. It is, thus, urged that the present bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. It is next contended by the learned A.G.A. that since the trial of the case is at an advance stage and on date three prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the court below to conclude the trial itself instead of deciding the present bail application of the applicant on merit.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, but without commenting on the merits of the case I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
It is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within a period of six months, 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.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Sushil/-