Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46315 of 2018 Applicant :- Maya Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Joshi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Maya Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 315, 328 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kundarki, District- Moradabad during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Rakesh was solemnized with Suman on 30.12.2017. Just after the expiry of a period of five months and 26 days from the date of the marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 26.06.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died in suspicious circumstances. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on the same date i.e. on 26.06.2018 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of her family members, but on the information given by the Police Control Room. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted thereafter. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that no definite reason can be assigned for the cause of the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the viscera was preserved. The doctor, however, found 5 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, which are detailed herein below:-
(1) Abraded contusion 2 x 1 cm on right side of face just below lower border of mandible.
(2) Abraded contusion 1 cm x 0.2 cm which is 4 cm below from chin in midline.
(3) Abraded contusion 2 x 1 cm, which is 5 cm below from chin and 1.5 cm left lateral to injury no. (2)
(4) Abraded contusion 1 x 1 cm on front of right knee joint.
(5) Abraded contusion 1.5 cm x 1 cm. Right lap to injury no. (4) approximately 1.5 cm The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 26.6.2018 by Arvind the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 204 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 315, 328 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kundarki, District-Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Rakesh (the husband), Ram Kishore (the father-in-law) and Maya Devi (the mother-in- law) of deceased were nominated as 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 the charge-sheet dated 06.09.2018 against all the three named accused. Upon the submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 873 of 2018 (State Vs. Rakesh and others) came to be registered which is now said to be pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, but she is innocent. The applicant is an old lady and is in Jail since 28.06.2018. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by consuming Aluminium Phosphide as is evidence from the viscera report dated 08.06.2018 submitted by the Chemical Analyst. The deceased was residing separately from the family of the applicant. As such the applicant has no room to play in the family life of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations with regard to the non-fulfilment of dowry are not pointing at the applicant. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 20 years. The deceased has died at her matrimonial home just after 5 months and 26 days from the date of her marriage occurrence. The death of the deceased is, therefore, highly unnatural. The presence of 5 external ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased has not been explained by the applicant. The plea of separate living raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not substantiated by any public document. The certificate of Gram Pradhan dated 4.12.2018 does not prove that she was residing separately from the deceased. As such, the document cannot be relied upon. On the aforesaid factual premise, he thus submits that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record and 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.
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.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 HSM