Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39435 of 2018 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Kuldeep Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Pradeep Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 490 of 2016 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 364 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kishni, District-Mainpuri during the pendency of the above mentioned trial, which now said to be pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-1st, Mainpuri.
3. Perused the record.
4. It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Damyanti Devi on 29.05.2015 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of more than one year and two months from the date of the marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 04.08.2016, in which the wife of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 04.08.2016 by the brother of the deceased, namely Arvind Kumar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0364 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kishni, District-Mainpuri .
5. In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons, namely, Pradeep Kumar-husband, Shyam Babu-father-in-law, Km. Priti- Nanad, Tarawati-mother-in-law of deceased were nominated as the named accused whereas four other unnamed persons were also nominated as accused. A perusal of the F.I.R. will further go to show that the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for demand of dowry have specifically been levelled. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 04.08.2016 on the information given by the first informant, namely, Arvind Kumar. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was characterised as homicidal. The post- mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 04.08.2016. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Apart from the ligature mark, two other external ante-mortem injuries were found by the Doctor on the body of the deceased, which were characterised as contusions. 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 dated 08.10.2016 only against three of the named accused, i.e., husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. One of the named accused, i.e., Nanad of the deceased, namely, Kr. Priti has been excluded. Upon submission of the charge-sheet dated 08.10.2016, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 490 of 2016 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar) came to be registered, which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Mainpuri. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, two prosecution witnesses of fact, namely, P.W.-1, Arvind Kumar, i.e., the father of the deceased and P.W.-2, Sandeep, i.e., the brother of the deceased, have been examined.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is none else but the husband of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 01.09.2016. As such, the applicant has undergone more than two years of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It the then submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The absence of any external ante- mortem injury, which could be fatal on the body of the deceased, speaks of the bonafide of the present applicant. It is next submitted that the two prosecution witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R.. Once there is no allegation that cruelty was committed upon the deceased for demand of dowry or there was a demand of dowry on the part of the present applicant, no offence under Section 304B I.P.C can be said to be committed by the present applicant. On the aforesaid premise, it thus urged that the present applicant, though the husband of the deceased, is liable to be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the occurrence has taken place within seven years of marriage of the applicant. The applicant is not only the husband of the deceased but also a charge- sheeted accused. It is further submitted that since the trial of the case has commenced and is at an advanced stage, therefore, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the trial itself instead of evaluating the evidence which has come during the course of trial.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of evidence on record as well as 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.
9. 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 six months provided the applicant would render all necessary co- operation in early conclusion of the trial.
10. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 YK