Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52495 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar @ Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Manoj Kumar @ Shiv Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sahayal, District- Auraiya , during pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that marriage of Satrudh (son of applicant) was solemnized with Naince (daughter of first informant) on 03.07.2021. However, just after expiry of a period of seven months and three days from the date of marriage of son of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 10.10.2021 in which, Naince daughter-in-law of applicant died. Information recording aforesaid occurrence at the concerned police station was not given by applicant or any of his family members but by Gram Pradhan, Ashwani Kumar telephonically. Thereafter, Inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 11.10.2021. In the opinion of panch witnesses, nature of death of deceased was suicidal. However, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of deceased. Thereafter, Ram Prakash Tiwari, father of deceased lodged a delayed F.I.R. dated 11.10.2021, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0176 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sahayal, District-Auraiya. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons namely, Satrudh (hasband), mother-in-law, Shivkumar (father-in-law), Divya (Nanad), Swadesh (Damad) and elder nanad of deceased were nominated as named accused.
5. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that marriage of daughter of first informant was solemnized with son of applicant on 03.07.2021. At the time of marriage, father of deceased i.e. first informant gave sufficient amount of dowry and goods. However, named accused persons were dissatisfied with same. They demanded additional dowry and a motorcycle. On account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry, daughter of first informant was put to death on 10.10.2021.
6. Subsequent of aforesaid F.I.R. dated 11.10.2021, post- mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 10.10.2021. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death of deceased was Asphyxia due to strangulation. According to the Autopsy Surgeon, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
Ligature mark in rounding 19 cm x 1 cm. present on below thyroid, circular, base of mark is reddish and soft. Sub curt a concern tissue under 1.9 cutter mark is achy mused."
7. Investigation of aforesaid case crime number is still pending. Learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused, Smt. Saroj i.e. mother-in-law of deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2021. For ready reference, order dated 14.12.2021 is reproduced herein-under:
"1. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant -
Smt. Saroj, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. -176 of 2021, under Sections -498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station -Sahayal, District -Auraiya, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) against FIR lodged on 11.10.2021, the applicant is in confinement since 21.10.2021;
(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case she is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;
(iv) though chargesheet has already been submitted, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial
(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was barely three months old. Even if the prosecution allegation as to strangulation are accepted, at this stage, there is no credible material in support of the further allegation of the applicant having participated in the occurrence. Neither there are any ante mortem injuries noted on the body of the deceased as may indicate participation by more than one person nor the allegation of demand of dowry is such as may involve the present applicant in the commission of the offence, inasmuch as, the principal allegation is of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and a motor cycle which demand may remain referable to the husband of the deceased and not his entire family. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant has been accused by way of over implication and that her case stands on a different footing other than that of the applicant's son namely Satrudh; ;
(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.
4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
5. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
6. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. "
8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is father-in-law of deceased, but he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. Applicant is in custody since 21.10.2021. General and Omnibus allegations regarding additional demand of dowry have been made against applicant. Applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of alleged demand of dowry. Husband of deceased is already languishing in jail. Co-accused Saroj, who is mother-in-law of deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2021.
9. Learned counsel for applicant then contends that for the facts and reasons mentioned in the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. On the cumulative strength of aforesaid, learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Saroj. Since there is no distinguishing feature on the basis of which, case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused, therefore, present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. As such, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the present bail application. Learned A.G.A. contends that daughter-in-law of applicant has died in the house of applicant just after seven months and three days of marriage of deceased. As such, burden upon applicant is to explain the manner of occurrence in terms of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Apart from above, learned A.G.A contends that since death of daughter-in-law of applicant occurred within seven years from the date of marriage of daughter of first informant, therefore, burden is upon applicant to explain his innocence by virtue of Section 113B of Evidence Act. However, applicant has failed to discharge the same. As per post-mortem report of deceased, she has died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. In view of above, applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.
11. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusation made as well as complicity of applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
12. Accordingly, bail application of applicant is allowed.
13. Let the applicant-Manoj Kumar @ Shiv Kumar involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
14. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 YK