Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24234 of 2018 Applicant :- Rishu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Ram Sagar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shoiab Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Rishu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.454 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with deceased Jyoti on 18.06.2017. Just after expiry of a period of four months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 18.10.2017, in which the wife of the applicant died as alleged to have committed suicide by hanging herself. An first information report was lodged on the same day by the father of the deceased, namely, Sukhdev, which came to be registered as No.454 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. In the aforesaid F.I.R., as many as four persons, namely, Rishu -husband (applicant herein), Anshu -brother-in-law, Smt. Siyarani, mother-in-law and Dhaniram -father-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused.
In the first information report it has been alleged that the marriage of the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant on 18.06.2017 and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry as per capacity has been given as a dowry, but the in-laws of the victim were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they started harassing and torturing her for demand of additional dowry and when the same was not fulfilled, she has been killed.
The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 18.10.2017. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was performed on 19.10.2017. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 25.10.2017, i.e. he spent nearly 1 1/2 years of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Inviting the attention of the Court to the post- mortem report of the deceased, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that no other anti-mortem external injury was found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark, which speaks of the bona fide of the present applicant. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the first information report regarding the demand of dowry. On the basis of the submission, as noted above, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the death of the deceased is suicidal and not on account of deliberate act of the present applicant. The mother of the deceased has been examined and she turned hostile. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. No other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the present application for bail by contending that the applicant is not only a named accused but is also a charge-sheeted accused. Learned A.G.A. further submits that offence complained of against the applicant is under Section 304-B I.P.C., therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution as the death of the deceased was nearly within five months of her marriage. Consequently, the applicant is under heavy burden to explain as to in what circumstances, the incident in question has occurred. However, upto this stage, according to the learned A.G.A., the applicant has completely failed to discharge the said burden. The burden to proof regarding the innocence of the applicant, which is required under Sections 106 and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, remains undischarged, as the applicant has not been able to explain as to how occurrence has taken place, even when the occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant. It is further submitted that specific allegations of additional demand of dowry has been made in the first information report as well as in the statement of the first informant. Therefore, the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for non-fulfilment of the alleged demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused including the present applicant, who is direct beneficiary of the said demand of dowry. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that whatever be the circumstances, it was an unnatural death, but even if it is a case of suicide, then too it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304-B I.P.C. is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable doubt. Dealing with the complicity of applicant-accused and in light of the material on record, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant vehemently submit that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicants but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stand rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004, if there is no legal impediment. in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicants fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
It is clarified that any observations, if any, made by this Court are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019
Anand Sri./-