Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44748 of 2018 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ausham Luthra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sanjeev Kumar Verma, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 334 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Chhaya Gupta on 13.05.2013. From the aforesaid wedlock a son namely Saurabh was born who is aged about 1 1/2 years on date. As such, he is a minor. After the expiry of a period of five years and one month from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 1.6.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died in mysterious circumstances. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 1.6.2018 by the father of the deceased namely Anil Kumar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 334 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. The applicant was named as the solitary named accused. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 1.6.2018 on the information of the first informant. In the opinion of the the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 2.6.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. Apart from the injury relating to strangulation committed upon the body of the deceased, one abrasion was also found on the body of the deceased. The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted a charge-sheet dated 26.6.2018 against the applicant, upon which cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned, vide cognizance taking order dated 12.7.2018. What has happened subsequent to the cognizance taking order dated 12.7.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been disclosed at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
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 2.6.2018. As such, he has undergone more than six months of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The deceased was having a love affair with another person and it is on account of the aforesaid fact, the deceased was put to death. On the aforesaid factual premise, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is the husband of the deceased he is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 28 years and she has died at her matrimonial home just after 5 years and 1 month from the date of her marriage. The deceased was having a male child aged about 2 1/2 years. As per the post mortem report, the death of the deceased has been caused on account of strangulation and the present applicant has been named as a solitary accused. The applicant is a charge sheeted accused under section 304 B I.P.C. As such presumption is available to the prosecution. However, the applicant has failed to discharge the burden arising out of offence under section 304 B I.P.C. As such, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant, I do not find any good reason to grant indulgence to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant 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 one year 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 :- 21.12.2018 HSM