Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16703 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahendra Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
From the record, this Court finds that the hearing of the present bail application was deferred on 6th August, 2018 on the request of learned counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Consequently, the hearing of the bail application was deferred for a period of 10 weeks.
Today, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit. Consequently, the Court has proceeded to hear the present case.
Heard Mr. Ram Prakash Ram, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Mahendra Rajbhar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 983 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Reena Devi on 10th April, 2012. Before expiry of a period of even two years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 13th March, 2016, in which the wife of the applicant sustained superficial and deep burn injuries. It is the case of the applicant that after the said incident, the victim was taken to District Hospital, Mau on 13th March, 2016 and on the same date she was referred to the B.H.U. Varanasi for advance treatment. It is also the case of the applicant that immediately the victim was got discharged from the District Hospital, Mau and was got admitted at B.H.U. Varanasi on 14th March, 2016. Statement of the victim was recorded on 15th March, 2016, which is on record at page 25 of the paper-book. The victim died on 18th March, 2016. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 19th March, 2016 on the information given by an employee of the Hospital. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the deceased died on account of burn injuries sustained by her. The nature of the death of the deceased as to whether the same is homicidal or suicidal, could not be given by the Panch witnesses. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 19th March, 2016. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was Septicaemia shock as a result of burn injury. The Doctor further observed that the deceased has sustained 100% burn injuries all over the body except the head and back of head. A first information report dated 2nd November, 2017 in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged by the father of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0983 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur. In the aforesaid first information report, as many as four persons, namely, Mahendra Rajbhar the husband i.e. the applicant herein, Kedar Rajbhar the father-in-law, Surendra Rajbhar the Jeth and Smt. Chanda Devi the Jethani of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. 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 on 16th February, 2018 only against two of the named accused, namely, the husband i.e. the applicant herein and the father-in-law. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 16th February, 2018 is not known to the learned counsel for the applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The father-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23rd March, 2018. The applicant is a young man aged about 33 years having no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 3rd February, 2018. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the present case, the wife of the applicant had died on account of burn injuries, which were sustained by her, while she was cooking food. To lend support to the aforesaid submission, he invited the attention of the Court to the dying declaration of the deceased, photo copy of which is at page 25 of the paper book. However, on a pointed query raised by this Court about the site plan regarding place of occurrence, the learned counsel for the applicant could not answer any satisfactory reply. However, on the basis of the submission, as noted above, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the death of the deceased has taken place in an accidental fire and not on account of deliberate act of the present applicant. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that offence complained of against the applicant is under Section 304-B I.P.C., therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution. Consequently, the applicant is under heavy burden to explain as to in what circumstances, the incident in question has occurred. However, upto this stage, according to the learned A.G.A., the applicant has completely failed to discharge the said burden. In absence of any site plan being brought on record by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the place of occurrence, bona fide of the applicant is also doubtful. The learned A.G.A. further summits that as per the postmortem report, the deceased has sustained 100% superficial and deep burn injuries all over her body. The burden to proof the innocence of the applicant, which is required under Sections 106 and 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, remains undischarged, as the applicant has not been able to explain as to how occurrence has taken place, even when the occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant 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.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Sushil/-