Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13828 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjay Deep Saraswat Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Prashant Vyas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant involved in Case Crime No.1587 of 2018, under Sections 498- A, 304-B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Highway, District Mathura with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of deceased and he has not committed any offence. It was stated that on 17.10.2018, the parents of deceased have taken the deceased to their house at Radhapuram Estate, where on 18.10.2018 a quarrel has taken place and after that deceased went to Bhuteswar Railway Station and tried to commit suicide on railway track and that she has sustained serious injuries and later on she died. Regarding, the fact that she has tried to commit suicide on railway track, news was also published in newspaper and that one of the passerby namely, Gajendra has got her admitted to the hospital. It was stated that first informant has forcibly got the deceased discharged from the hospital against advise of the doctor and after that she died. The FIR is highly belated as incident took place on 18.10.2018 but FIR was lodged on next day at 20.25 hours. A suicide note was also recovered from the pocket of deceased and the same was produced by the concerned doctor and that said suicide note along with admitted hand-writing of deceased was sent to F.S.L. but the hand-writing of suicide note did not match with the admitted hand-writing of deceased and that there were no blood stains on the said suicide note. Learned counsel has submitted that the fact that deceased made an attempt to commit suicide on railway track, is also established from the statements of various Railway officials. Learned counsel has submitted that at the time of alleged incident, the deceased was at her parental home and thus, there is no evidence that she was harassed by the applicant. Learned counsel has referred application annexed as Annexure-22 and stated that on 17.10.2018 deceased has quarrelled with family of applicant and she was taken to police station and from there she was taken away by her father to his home. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred various statements, recorded during investigation as well as some documents and submitted that all attending facts and circumstances of the case show that deceased was a short tempered lady and that she tried to commit suicide while she was residing at her parental home and that there is no evidence that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by applicant in relation to dowry demand. It was stated that the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC are not satisfied. It was stated that the statement of Loco Pilot of train by which deceased committed suicide, was also recorded, wherein he has stated that one lady suddenly came in front of train on the railway track and as the train was in speed thus, the train could not be stopped suddenly and the accident took place. The statement of Station-Master of Bhuteswar Railway Station also supports that version. The information was also sought through R.T.I., which has been annexed as Annexure S.A.-7 in supplementary affidavit, and that information also supports the version that deceased committed suicide on the railway track. The first informant is not an eye-witness of incident and that statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who are father and mother of deceased, have already been recorded by the Trial Court and that no specific role was assigned to applicant. It has been further submitted that applicant was not present at the spot and on the day of incident, he has visited Delhi. It was further submitted that applicant is absolutely innocent and now he is languishing in jail since 12.11.2018 having no criminal history and that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.
Learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that at the time of alleged incident, deceased was residing at her matrimonial home and that she has suffered unnatural death within a period of two years and two months. It was further stated that after marriage, deceased was continuously being harassed on account of dowry demand and that applicant and his family members used to demand Rs.20,00,000/- in dowry and that even before this case, a case was already registered against applicant under Section 498-A IPC, regarding harassment of deceased. It was submitted that at the time of alleged incident, the deceased was residing at her matrimonial home and that there is evidence that she was being harassed by applicant and his family members on account of dowry demand. Learned counsel for the first informant has further submitted that a false version has been developed by applicant and that in fact the deceased did not suffer any accident, but as the applicant was working in Railway Department and in connivance with some of the Railway officials, he has got developed a false version, whereas, in fact deceased has been done to death by applicant and other co-accused persons. It was stated that even the suicide is unnatural death for the purpose of Section 304-B I.P.C. It has been further submitted that the bail application of co-accused Mohan Lal and Smt. Premvati, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, has already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and that even the second bail application of said co-accused persons has also been rejected, whereas the applicant being husband of deceased is more responsible for the offence in question.
Perusal of record shows that marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place about two years prior to the incident and that deceased has suffered unnatural death within a short span of two years and two months of her marriage. As per prosecution version even a case under Section 498-A was earlier registered against applicant. There are allegations that deceased was being harassed on account of dowry demand. The first and second bail applications of co-accused persons namely, Mohan Lal and Smt. Premvati, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, have already been rejected by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Sanjay Deep Sarswat is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Neeraj