Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11347 of 2018 Applicant :- Ibrahim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Srivastava,Himanshu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Ibrahim in connection with Case Crime No. 318 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kothibhar, District Maharajganj.
Heard Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Vivek Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been implicated in the present crime on account of the fact alone that he happens to be the husband; that there are general allegations with no specific role being assigned to the applicant; that the informant is neither an eye-witness of the incident nor has disclosed the name of eye-witness; that the First Information Report was lodged after more than a month of the alleged incident; that there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR; that the deceased died at her parents' residence while she was under treatment for her ailment; that there is no apparent injury found on the dead body; that the injuries shown in the post-mortem report are superficial in nature; that the deceased was never subjected to any violence or intimidation much less for the purpose of dowry which excludes the applicability of Section 304B IPC; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail. He is in jail since 16.10.2017.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in the four walls of her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. He has further has argued that except for the fact that the deceased died at her parent's home, it is incorrect to say that there is no demand of dowry or that there was no violence that led to the deceased's death or the deceased died a natural death on account of tuberculosis of which she was allegedly suffering. To the contrary she was badly thrashed in her in-laws place and was taken away a month before her death to her parents place for treatment; that she was admitted to the hospital and after she recovered, she was taken back to her father's place where she died on 26.4.2017 at 7 p.m. A perusal of the post-mortem report shows that there are five injuries found on the dead body, two of which are contusions and three are abrasions; and, above all the cause of death is opined as a result of shock and hemorrhage on account of ante-mortem injuries. The applicant who is the husband and bears a higher responsibility for the security, safety and well being of his wife has resorted to ill treatment of his wife, including physical violence, that led to her death may be at her father's house. As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail. He further submits that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Israyfil who is a brother-in-law (Jeth), father-in-law and the mother-in-law all of whom have differential roles and a lesser degree of answerability. As such ,the applicant cannot claim parity with that of co-accused.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the evidence appearing in the case, the case of unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage; that there is an allegation of violence some months before at her in-laws place before the deceased was taken away by her father for treatment and there are definite allegations of a dowry demand, and, in particular the fact that the applicant is credited with a higher order of answerability in the matter but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
Anything said in this order will not affect the case of the parties on merits at the trial which the trial Court shall be free to judge on all issues of fact and law in accordance with evidence led at the trial.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018/Deepak