Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34011 of 2021 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Raj Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 242 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 328 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act registered at P.S. Samshabad, District Agra.
The prosecution case as per the first information report lodged on 6.12.2020 by Peetam Singh against the applicant and Smt. Ramwati @ Rambeti is that the marriage of Smt. Gudiya, daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant on 2.7.2017 as per Hindu customs in which dowry was given. After marriage, Raj Kumar, the husband of the deceased and her mother-in-law Smt. Ramwati @ Rambeti demanded extra dowry, motorcycle and money was put to demand, she was mentally tortured for it. They were counselled many times but they did not mend their ways. The applicant who is the husband of the deceased is alleged to have troubled and tortured the deceased. On 5.12.2020 at about 10 p.m., one Dalveer Singh informed the first informant on his mobile that Smt. Gudiya has consumed poison and has also given poison to her child and admitted in hospital in Agra in the ICU. On the said information, the first informant along with other persons reached the hospital and found that Gudiya and the child-Varun aged about two and a half years were dead. They then enquired in the village and came to know that accused persons have given poison to them due to their demand of dowry.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that an information of death was sent from the hospital with regards to both the deceased persons and it was stated that the deceased were diagnosed as a case of unknown poisoning. It is argued that as per the inquest conducted on the body of both the deceased and even the postmortem report, they have not received any bodily injury. The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera was examined after which the chemical analyst found aluminum phosphide poison in the viscera of both the deceased. It is argued that although the first informant and the other witnesses have stated in identical words regarding demand of dowry and the torture and harassment meted out to the deceased-Gudiya but the same is false and only with an intention to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is further argued that the charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted and as such there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence or interrupting with investigation. It is further argued that the deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison and then administering poison to her son. Paragraph 15 of the affidavit in support of the bail application has been placed before the court and it is argued that on 5.12.2020 some altercation took place between the applicant and the deceased Smt. Gudiya after which the applicant left for his shop and in his absence, Smt. Gudiya who was an stubborn lady consumed poison and also administered poison to her son. The applicant on coming to know about it immediately came back home and took both the persons to the hospital but unfortunately they died. It is argued that since there was no mark of struggle on the body of both the deceased persons, the prosecution case as set up of administering poison by the accused persons, is incorrect. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment in the case of Shanmughan Vs. State of Kerala: (2012) 2 SCC 788 and has argued that while placing paragraph 11 and 12 of the same that in a case of administration of poison there would be injuries on the person of the deceased and since the same were missing in the case in hand, it cannot be said that the accused persons have administered poison to them. It is further argued that Smt. Ramwati @ Rambeti, mother-in-law of the deceased has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 19.7.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21452 of 2021 (Smt. Ramwati @ Rambeti Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before this court which is taken on record. It is argued that the applicant has neither demanded any dowry nor harassed the deceased. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 28 of the affidavit in support of the bail application and is in jail since 7.12.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of one of the deceased namely Smt. Gudiya. In the present matter, the wife of the applicant namely Smt. Gudiya and his two and a half years old son namely Varun have died. Both the deceased have been found to have died due to poison which was identified as aluminum phosphide in their viscera. It is argued that there is an allegation against the applicant of demanding dowry alongwith his mother and due to non-fulfillment of the same torturing and harassing the deceased. It is further argued that the marriage of the deceased Smt. Gudiya was solemnized with the applicant on 2.7.2017, her death and even the death of the son of the applicant is unnatural and insofar as it relates to Smt. Gudiya in her matrimonial house unnaturally. The prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, It is evident that the applicant is the husband of one of the deceased Smt. Gudiya and father of the other deceased namely Varun. There are allegation of demand of dowry by the applicant and co-accused persons in the first information report and even in the statement of the witnesses. Both the deceased have died due to poison which was found in their viscera. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Smt. Gudiya on 2.7.2017. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Shanmughan (supra), the same is distinguishable of facts as the said case was after full fledged trial and conviction of the applicant even by the High Court. The bail of co-accused Smt. Ramwati @ Rambeti has been granted by a co-ordinate bench of this court considering the fact that she is a lady and living separately from the applicant.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, 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 :- 26.10.2021/SA (Samit Gopal,J.)