Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36442 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Rajni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Rama Shankar Mishra,Sachin Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manta Ram Gupta,Neetu Gupta,Santosh Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
List revised. No one present for the first informant.
Sri G.S. Hazela, Advocate filed power on behalf of applicant which is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant are also taken on record.
Heard Sri G.S. Hazela, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated for causing dowry death of Smt. Vandana, being sister-in-law (Jethani) of deceased though she is not named in F.I.R.; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by father of deceased, his two daughters Varsha and Vandana were married to Sumit Singh and Naresh, two real brothers in May, 2014 and since after marriage they were being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and in the evening of 7.3.2016 Vandana was beaten by accused persons and in the morning of 8.3.2016 at about 10:00 a.m. in an attempt on her life she was put to fire, information of which was given by his another daughter Varsha and Vandan is under treatment in the hospital; that in F.I.R. common and general role has been assigned to all accused; that applicant did neither make any demand of dowry from deceased nor treated her with cruelty; that during treatment Vandana died on 13.3.2016 on which Section 304-B I.P.C. was added; that deceased was admitted to hospital by her husband at 3:45 a.m. on 8.3.2016 and told Medical Officer of Safadarjung Hospital, Delhi that at the time of cooking food kerosene oil fell on her and accidentally she sustained burn injuries; that subsequently the same day dying declaration of deceased was recorded in the evening wherein she stated that "applicant poured kerosene on her and her younger Jethani Mamta put her on fire while her mother-in-law Vimlesh was catching hold of her hands and earlier statement to Medical Officer was made under fear and his sister Varsha who is married in the same house was out side the house at that time and her husband and father-in-law are very good persons and his two Jethanies and mother-in-law are whole-sole responsible for the incident"; that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of deceased made by her to Medical Officer copy at R.A.-1 and the dying declaration at Annexure-4 being in contradiction to her earlier statement to Medical Officer may not be relied; that applicant did not cause dowry death of Vandana; that co-accused Vimlesh, mother-in-law of deceased who was assigned with the role of catching hold of hands of deceased, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.8.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25257 of 2016, copy at Annexure-13; that applicant has no criminal history; that in Sessions Trial No.711 of 2016 even charges have not been framed as yet; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 1.9.2016; that trial has not proceeded as per copy of order-sheet.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that role assigned to applicant is similar to co- accused Mamta whose bail application has been rejected by this Court; that earlier statement recorded by Medical officer appears to be based on information provided by in-laws of deceased; that there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of deceased recorded in presence of Magistrate; that applicant has actively participated in the incident by pouring kerosene on deceased after which she was put to fire by co- accused Mamta; that role assigned to applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Vimlesh who was assigned only with the role of catching hold; that applicant is delaying hearing on charge in collusion with co-accused persons with ulterior motive to make a ground for bail and it is clear from the copy of order-sheet filed by applicant that co-accused persons are seeking exemption from personal appearance turn by turn to avoid hearing on charges and framing of charges in this case of dowry death within 2 years of marriage; that applicant is main culprit and if released on bail, shall misuse the liberty of bail and delay and defraud the fair disposal of trial.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application of applicant Smt. Rajni in Case Crime No.90 of 2016, under Sections 323, 307, 304B, 498A, 34 I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, is rejected accordingly.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after framing charges without giving any further exemption to any of the accused and by rejecting their bails if any further exemptions is sought.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Kpy