Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19797 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Guddi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhishm Pal Singh
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Bhishm Pal Singh, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for committing dowry death of Smt. Dipika Yadav with general allegations being mother-in-law of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 12.10.2017 by Vishwa Bhooshan with averments that his sister Dipika was married to Umesh @ Sonu on 14.1.2016 with heavy dowry but since after marriage she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Scorpio Car as dowry and on 12.10.2017 when she was in advanced stage of 7 months pregnancy she was beaten by her husband and in-laws with multiple injuries on neck resulting in her death; that post- mortem report states that death of deceased did take place due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation; that no specific role has been assigned to applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant may not be beneficiary of Scorpio Car allegedly demanded, as dowry; that applicant was living separately at Village Barauli Ahir in Tajganj, District Agra while deceased was living with her husband Sonu at Anand Vihar, Rajrai Road Tajganj, Agra; that since hyoid bone of deceased is mentioned to be intact in post-mortem report then it appears to be a case of suicide; that deceased was having suicidal tendency and earlier also she cut her nerves following which she was hospitalised where her statement was recorded on 30.7.2017 wherein she stated that due to insomnia she made cut on her wrist with kitchen knife; that following dispute between husband and wife, deceased appears to have committed suicide; that case of applicant is distinguishable with husband of deceased; that though bail application of Suresh, husband of applicant has been rejected vide order dated 27.2.2018 but since applicant is a lady she has a better case for grant of bail; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 12.12.2017.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed prayer of bail and contended that admittedly deceased and applicant were living in same vicinity of Tajganj and even if there was a distance of 3 Kms. between their residences, there was easy access of applicant at the place of deceased; that previously also attempt on life of deceased was made and on account of compromise, statement of deceased was written on 30.7.2017 regarding self-inflicted cut injuries; that it is a case of brutal dowry death of 7 months pregnant lady within 1 year and 9 months of marriage by strangulation; that post-mortem report states multiple injuries over neck and other parts of body of deceased with opinion of death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation; that trial is in progress and during trial threats are being given to prosecution witnesses and after much efforts and delay on the part of accused, statement of P.W.-1 could be completed in a long period of six months; that there is presumption of dowry death against applicant under section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act; that case of applicant may not be better than her husband whose bail application has been rejected on 27.2.2018, copy at C.A.-1; that if applicant is released on bail, shall misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is not entitled for bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Smt. Guddi in Case Crime No.1004 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra, is rejected accordingly.
However, the trial court is requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Kpy