Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49181 of 2018 Applicant :- Sachin Tyagi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Sinha,Samarth Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of applicant namely Kunnu Tyagi was solemnized with Shanu Tyagi in November, 2014. Initially the said marriage was solemnized as a Court marriage but thereafter the marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of two years and eleven months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.10.2017, in which Shanu Tyagi, the wife of the brother of the applicant sustained superficial and deep burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim was rushed to the C.H.C. Hospital, Kharkhoda from where she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the victim was got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 11.10.2017. While the victim was undergoing treatment at the aforesaid hospital, her dying declaration was recorded on 13.10.2017, which is at page 38 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the victim has implicated the family members of her in-laws in the commission of alleged crime.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 12.10.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Kali Charan Tyagi (father- in-law), Kunti Devi (mother-in-law), Sachin Tyagi (Jeth), Antim Tyagi (Jethani) Archana (Nand) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The victim succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.10.2017 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.10.2017 itself. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was 70 % deep thermal burn with perineal burn. The injuries found on the body of the deceased has been described by the Doctor as follows:-
"Alleged UH/o thermal burns sustained at home when her in laws poured kerosene over her and lit fire and fire was doused by husband using water no H/0 LOC/seizures ENT bleed/fall No H/o Past medical illness married three years son 1 and 1/2 years old LMP 1 and 1/2 years back lactating O/E GC critical conscious, oriented P 120 Min CVS S1 S2 present.
BP 100/70 mm B.P 100/70 mm RR-22/mint smell of kerosene present dehydradion int. 70 % burn deep thermal burns with perineal burn as pr chart patient was admitted to BICU i a critical condition IV fluids and IV antibiotics were given regular dressings were done PC, ICU eye call were done and advice followed. However, patient's condition remained critical patient had spikes of fever patient develped cardiac arrest on 23.10.2017 (PR was given but patient could not be revived. Patient is declared dead on 23.10.2017 at 8:30 PM)"
Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 25.6.2018 against three of the named accused under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Two of the named accused namely, Antim Tyagi and Archana (nand) of the deceased have been excluded. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018 has neither been disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been detailed by the learned counsel for the applicant, at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 6.5.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is thus submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2017 which have been brought by means of a supplementary affidavit filed today. Prior to the recording of the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration of the victim has already been recorded on 13.10.2017. There is clear contradiction in the dying declaration as well as the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. as per the dying declaration/statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be probable. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years and she had died at her matrimonial home just after two years and eleven months of her marriage. The deceased had died on account of burn injuries sustained by her. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. Rebutting the statement urged by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased has clearly implicated the present applicant in the criminality, giving rise to the present applicant for bail. There is nothing on the record to dislodge the testimony of the victim herself in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the 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 material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments 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 of the present applicants stands rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Arshad