Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44635 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt Madhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Radhey Shyam Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Madhu seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 541 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Farrukhabad during the pendency of the trial.
3. Perused the record.
4. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Akhilesh Kumar was solemnized with Kamini on 20.06.2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of two months and eight days from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 28.08.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she sustained burn injuries. The inquest of the body of the deceased was performed on 28.08.2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the father of the deceased, namely Swadesh Kumar. 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 28.08.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the deceased has died on account of shock as a result of ante- mortem burn injuries. The Doctor further noted that the deceased has sustained superficial to deep burn all over the body except the back of head and both sole. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 28.08.2018 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Anuj Kumar, which came to be registered as Case Crime No.0541 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District- Farrukhabad.
5. In the aforesaid F.I.R., Akhilesh-husband, Yudhisthir-Devar, Jethani (name-unknown) Rakesh Rathor-father-in-law and mother-in-law (name-unknown) of deceased were nominated as named accused. It is the case of the applicant that during the pendency of the investigation of the aforesaid case crime number certain affidavits were filed by the first informant in which a departure was made from the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R.. Whether these affidavits are the part of the case diary or not has not been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Therefore, the affidavits relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be looked into at this stage. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 14.09.2018 only against the husband and mother-in-law (the applicant herein) of the deceased. Rest of the named accused have been excluded. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge- sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 22.10.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time hearing of the present bail application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is a lady and she has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 30.08.2018. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by immolating herself. Upto this stage, there is no evidence to show that the applicant has even abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. The deceased has not died on account of any deliberate act committed by the present applicant. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. According to the learned A.G.A., the applicant is a charge- sheeted accused under Section 304B I.P.C. and therefore, presumption is available to the prosecution. The applicant has not been able to discharge the burden which is required to be discharged in respect of an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. The deceased has died within two years and eight months from the date of marriage, which is highly unnatural. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned A.G.A. submits that the present applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court and the bail application of the applicant is liable to the rejected.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon considering the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow the present application. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
9. However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within one year provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.
10. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 YK