Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32204 of 2017 Applicant :- Ram Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap Singh,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,L.M.Singh
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Ram Prakash in Case Crime No.281 of 2017, under Sections 147, 302, 120B IPC, PS Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar.
Heard Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim was married to the applicant's son fifteen years back and the couple had two issues, a daughter aged about thirteen years and a son of ten years; that the victim suffered burn injuries in the night hours of 22.04.2017 regarding which information was given at number 100 facility by the deceased, Neelam herself; that in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant it was a case of an accident by fire. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the applicant promptly brought the injured to the hospital but she died during treatment.
Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the information sent by the Government Hospital where the victim was admitted that indicates that it was the applicant-the father-in-law who had brought the victim to the hospital; that learned counsel for the applicant has placed much emphasis on the aforesaid fact reflected in the memo from the hospital to the police showing that it was the applicant-the father-in-law who rushed the victim to the hospital and not the police or ambulance as said by witnesses who are neighbours and natives of the locality; that it has also been argued that the two children of the deceased who are of the age of discretion had not at all been asked by the police as to what happened on the day of occurrence and how the deceased suffered burn injuries and instead statements of witnesses from the neighbourhood have been recorded who have testified to a general ill treatment of the victim by her in-laws including the applicant; that it has been argued that the death is suicidal on account of fact that the victim had somehow come to believe that her husband who is employed in the Armed Forces and posted to far away borders is involved with one Richa Singh, whereas Richa Singh is a teacher in a school but has stated in her statement that she has nothing to do with the son of the applicant and deceased's husband, Rajendra Singh; that the deceased committed suicide on account of aforesaid suspicion for which the applicant who is the father-in-law is in no way to blame.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that there is consistent history of ill treatment of the deceased at the hands of her in-laws; that the first informant though not an eye- witness as categorically come up with a case that his sister was ill treated by all her in-laws including her husband and the applicant, the father-in-law who would beat her up; that on 22.04.2017 at about seven in the morning the father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the two sisters-in-law have beaten up the victim who had called the police at the number 100 facility but the police did not take any action; that there is overwhelming evidence in the statements of neighbours, even the Village Pradhan, Smt. Sushila Devi that the victim was constantly ill treated by her in-laws and beaten up badly; that she would often come to Village Pradhan and would show her injuries; that it has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the complainant when the occurrence took place, there was no one at home except the applicant and, therefore, the heaviest burden lay on his shoulders to explain those circumstances which led the deceased to die of burn injuries and for his mere saying that she committed suicide the burden cast on him as to the special knowledge of facts under Section 106 of Evidence Act would not be discharged.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the background of dispute between the parties, the general and consistent evidence of violence, even after sixteen years of marriage, with the deceased, and, the fact that she died an unnatural death due to burn injuries when the applicant and the deceased were the only two persons inside home, in the opinion of this Court does not entitle the applicant to bail at this stage.
Anything said in this order will not affect the trial court in their assessment of evidence led at the trial which would be judged uninfluenced by anything said here.
This bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that trial pending before the concerned court be concluded expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Shahroz