Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20403 of 2021 Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brahma Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Brahma Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Monu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 306 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station New Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that first information report is based on false and incorrect facts and the accused persons named therein have been falsely implicated. It is argued that the same has been registered against 09 persons whereas the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant who is the husband and Smt. Chandra who is the mother-in-law of the deceased whereas the other 07 accused persons have been exonerated which goes to show that there is a false implication of all the accused persons. It is further argued that the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide which would be suggestive of the fact that the gate of the house was locked from inside which was broken and then persons entered in the house and found the deceased in a dead condition. It is argued that the postmortem report does not show any other bodily injury present on the body of the deceased but the viscera has been preserved. The viscera report is still awaited. It is argued while placing paragraph 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit in support of bail application that at the time of incident the applicant was not present in the house and was out at his work place to cut out brick along with his other family members at brick kiln wherein the deceased Smt. Soni was all alone in the house. It is argued that there was a dispute of the applicant with his neighbour Nitin who is the jeeja of the deceased Smt. Soni and due to the said aggression the deceased herself took medicine from a medical store and consumed it as a result of which she died. It is argued that the entire prosecution story is false and incorrect. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 and is in jail since 19.06.2020.
Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that marriage of the deceased with the applicant was solemnized on 24.02.2016 and she died after four years of marriage and the death is unnatural in her matrimonial house. It is further argued that the story as set up by the applicant that the deceased had taken some medicine from the medical store and consumed it as a result of which she died is false and incorrect as a glass was recovered from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer in which some liquid was found in it which was sent for analysis and the same was found to be Aluminium Phosphide. It is argued that there is a consistent case of demand of dowry by the applicant and other family members. It is argued that prayer for bail be rejected.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of his wife Smt. Soni took place within four years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. The presence of Aluminium Phosphide in a glass recovered from the place of occurrence goes to show that poison has been used for committing dowry death. The explanation given by the applicant in paragraph 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit regarding the reason for the deceased committing suicide is not convincing at all.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 25.5.2021 AS Rathore Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.05.26 17:00:39 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad