Court No. - 74
Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1 of 2020 IN Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2068 of 2020 Appellant :- Kamlesh Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Manvendra Singh,Ravindra Singh,Santosh Kumar Nigam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 4.7.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge ( Rape and POCSO Act) Mahoba, in S.T. No. 109 of 2018, case crime no. 247 of 2017, convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections 498-A I.P.C. for 3 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 6,000/-, under section 304-B I.P.C. for 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and under section 4 D.P. Act for 2 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4000/-, police station Srinagar District Mahoba. In case of default, the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant Kamlesh that the marriage of the appellant with deceased was solemnized on 2.5.2014. The date of incident is 15.11.2017. The first information report was lodged on 24.11.2017 with delay of 19 days without any explanation by the complainant's side. The death is reported to be caused by consuming poison Aluminium Phosphate. The appellant is innocent and he had not administered any poison to his wife. Actually, matter is that the deceased was insisting to go to her parents' house to see the fair which was going on in the village of her father, due to which she herself consumed the poison. The appellant took her to the hospital. He is the witness of the inquest report. His presence can be seen in the inquest report also. The last rites of the deceased was performed by him. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that if the appellant had administered the poison to his wife, it is natural that he would have absconded. There is only one child from the wedlock. The co- accused have been bailed out and he is in jail from 2.8.2018. He undertakes, if he is released on bail, he will not misuse his liberty, hence, the prayer for bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that P.W.-7, the Investigating Officer did not file any proof that the deceased had consumed poison herself. In fact, the accused was not happy with the dowry given in marriage. He was demanding a Pulsar motor cycle, gold chain of 20 gm as additional dowry and was harassing the deceased for the same. In the continuation of harassment, he administered poison to the deceased /wife and caused her death within 7 years of marriage in suspicious circumstances, hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail.
The bail order of the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased has been produced before the court passed by a coordinate bench of this court. The role of the present accused is different as being the main accused of the crime. He is the husband of the deceased who is more responsible to look after his wife properly. As the death was caused within 7 years of marriage in suspicious circumstances in the house of the appellant, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of the appellant Kamlesh is rejected.
Paper book has been prepared and the same has been supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.
List this appeal after four weeks for final hearing.
Order Date :- 27.10.2021 Gss