Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41747 of 2018 Applicant :- Manish Kumar Agrahari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Shabana Nizam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate along with Ms. Shabana Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Anoop Baranwal, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing his Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Manish Kumar Agrahari seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Baxa, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Jagriti on 18.04.2016 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Before expiry of a period of even two years from the date of marriage of the deceased, an unfortunate incident occurred on 12.01.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. It is the case of the applicant that subsequent to the occurrence information regarding the same was given by the brother of the applicant to the family of the deceased. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 12.01.2018 by the brother of the deceased namely, Shivam Agrahari which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0010 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Baxa, District Jaunpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely, Ram Palat Agrahari (father-in-law), Rita Devi (mother-in-law) and Manish Kumar Agrahari (husband) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused.
A perusal of the said F.I.R. will go to show that the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and commission of cruelty upon the deceased for demand of dowry have been levelled. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 13.01.2018 on the information given by the brother of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of the deceased. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 13.01.2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injuries. Except for the ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased. The Police upon completion of statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, has submitted a charge sheet dated 17.02.2018 against all the named accused. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 29.03.2018. However, what has happened subsequent to the passing of the order dated 29.03.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, even when a period of more than seven months have elapsed since then.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is innocent and a young man. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The deceased was a short-tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. In the postmortem report of the deceased, no other external or internal injuries have been found upon her body except the ligature mark. The allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty committed upon the deceased have been made only to give colour to the prosecution case. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, it is vehemently urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Anoop Baranwal, learned counsel for the complainant have jointly opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. They submit that the applicant is the husband and deceased has committed suicide within a period two years from the date of marriage. Therefore, the presumption arising out of an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. is available to the prosecution. No such material has been brought on record upto this stage on the basis of which, it can be said that the accused had discharged the burden as required to be discharged. The F.I.R. contains categorical recital with regard to the demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased regarding the alleged demand of dowry. In the light of the facts, as noted herein above, it is urged that the applicant has failed to discharge the burden required to be discharged. As such, no case for bail is made out. The bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicants. Thus, the bail application of the applicants stands rejected.
It is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within a period of one year, provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Rahul.