Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39428 of 2018 Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Rohit seeking his enlargement on bail in Session Trial No. 1232 of 2017 (State Vs. Rohit Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 400 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Bilari, District-Moradabad, which is said to be pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C.-1st, Moradabad.
3. Perused the record.
4. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant- Rohit was solemnized with Rama in the year 2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a son, namely, Satyam was born, who is said to be aged about two years on the day of occurrence. However, approximately after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 16.07.2017, in which the wife of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was performed on 16.07.2017 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the brother of the deceased, namely, Rajesh. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterised as suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 16.07.2017 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Rajesh, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0400 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Bilari, District-Moradabad.
5. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Rohit-husband, Neha-Nanad, Sharda-mother-in-law, Suresh-father-in-law of the deceased whereas Rakesh-brother-in-law of Suresh were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 17.07.2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the deceased has died on account of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. However, the Doctor further found three ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, which are noted herein-under:
"1. Ligature mark 28cm. x 2cm. present around the neck interrupted backward & obliquely placed over right side of neck. Ligature mark in 3cm below right ear 4.0cm. below chin and 6.0cm. below left ear. Base of grove is yellowish brown hard and parchment like on dissection sub-cuterous tissue under ligature mark is white and glistning.
2. Abrasion 3.0cm. x 2.0cm. present in right side of upper back 20.0cm. below root of neck.
3. Multiple contusion 8.0cm. x 4.0 cm. present and back of left mid upper arm."
6. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 18.10.2017 only against the husband, i.e., the present applicant. Rest of the named accused were excluded. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon the same by the court concerned. Consequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 1232 of 2017 (State Vs. Rohit Kumar) came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Moradabad. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, in the aforesaid session trial number, six prosecution witnesses of fact, namely, P.W.1 Rajesh, P.W.-2 Nem Singh, P.W.-3 Sarda Devi, P.W.-4 Krishna Pal, P.W.-5 Maya Devi and P.W.-6 Bantu, have already been examined.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 27.08.2017. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that from the wedlock of the applicant with the deceased, a son was born, who is said to be aged about two years on the day of occurrence. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The trial has already commenced and six prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined upto this state, who have not supported the prosecution story. On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the occurrence has taken place within seven years of marriage of the applicant. The applicant is the husband of the deceased and is a charge-sheeted accused. The post-mortem of the deceased clearly shows that apart from the ligature mark, two other external ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased for which there is no explanation in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It is then contended that the session trial arising out of concerned Case Crime Number is already at the advanced stage and six prosecution witnesses of the fact have already been examined. At this stage, instead of considering the bail application of the applicant on merits, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the trial itself. On the aforesaid factual premise, he submits that the applicant being the husband of the deceased, is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. The bail application of the applicant is thus liable to be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow the present application. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
10. However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within six months provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.
11. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 YK