Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16801 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Somya Chaturvedi,Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi Sr. Adv.
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Apul Misra
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Affidavits have been exchanged.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant Ravindra, who is involved in Case Crime No. 337 of 2018, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat, is seeking enlargement on bail.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that first information report was got lodged with accusation of murder and eyewitness account of informant and his brother Manoj, whereas medically it was established to be a case of suicide by anti mortem hanging with no fracture in hyoid bone. Thereafter, statement of informant took a turn for this dowry death, whereas a tiny girl child of one month age, who is still residing with accused side, was there and statement of a witness is of this fact that deceased was of short temper. Other witnesses of village have categorically said that they were sitting outside the house and after hearing hue and cry, they rushed on spot and found this suicide by deceased. She was instantly tried to give medical aid, but of no avail. No demand of dowry or cruelty with regard to it was there. Entire case of F.I.R. was changed. Accused applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case because of being husband, hence bail during trial has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for informant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that death within seven years of marriage, particularly within three years, under unnatural circumstances at nuptial house with evidence of persistent demand of dowry coupled with cruelty regarding above demand, is there on record. On the date of occurrence, on telephone, communication regarding cruelty by husband and in-laws, was made by deceased to her family member, who has categorically said about this talk. The day was festival of Teej in Hindu and after having that information informant along with his brother Manoj had rushed to the village of accused persons, who left their house. Thereafter, this occurrence was noticed and because of anxiety and perplexity, this report of murder was got lodged. Though, demand of dowry and fulfilment of dowry has been written in this report, hence presumption under Section 113 of Evidence Act about dowry death is there and accused being husband was expected to explain about the fact, which is to be under his own knowledge, as is expected under Section 106 of Evidence Act, but no such explanation is there. Hence, bail be rejected.
From the perusal of record, it is apparent that Shikha was married on 20th February, 2015 with Ravindra, present accused applicant. This occurrence took place on 13.08.2018 i.e. within three years six months of marriage. The day was of Teej festival and on that date this occurrence of suicide took place i.e. death under unnatural circumstances at nuptial house. Informant along with his brother had rushed at above house and it was said in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that in-laws left their house. Thereafter, this case of suicide was detected. Deceased was with daughter of one month i.e. a tiny girl and she committed suicide that too on the day of Teej festival, when she had communicated to her family member on telephone about torture.
Under all above facts and circumstances, nature of accusation, heinousness of offence, vulnerability of witnesses and reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, there is no ground for grant of bail.
The bail application is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 NS