Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39397 of 2018 Applicant :- Satendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Satendra, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0111 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dadon, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant namely Satendra was solemnized with Sudha Devi sometime in the year 2015. After the expiry of a period of two years and six months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 25.4.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.4.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family member but on the information given by the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be homicidal.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 25.4.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0111 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dadon, District Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Satendra (husband), Shravan Singh (father-in-law), Asha Devi (mother-in-law), Pinki Devi (Nand) were nominated as the accused persons. From the perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that the allegations with regard to commission of cruelty, demand of dowry have also been made. The Post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 26.4.2015. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhage, shock on account of anti mortem injuries. The doctor who detailed the external injuries which were found on the body of the deceased are quoted herein under:
"(i) Deep abrasion over lateral and inferior to right chin about 3 cm from chin of size about 2 x 2 cm2 in size.
(ii) Contused swelling over right temporal area extensively to vertex and right ear of size about 9 x 8 cm2 with fracture of underlying right temporal bone.
(iii) Bleading present from both nostrils."
Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 22.6.2018 against three of the named accused persons and excluded Pinki Devi (Nand). Thereafter mother-in-law was enlarged on bail vide order dated 3.8.2018, and subsequently vide order dated 27.8.2018 the father-in-law was also enlarged on bail. What has happened subsequent to the charge sheet dated 22.6.2018, has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, even though a period of four months have rolled by since the date of submission of the charge sheet.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a young man and has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 12.6.2018. Father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant have already been enlarged on bail. On the date of the occurrence, the applicant was present at Delhi. Thus, on the aforesaid plea of alibi and the facts referred to above, it is urged that the applicant is liable to enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. According to the learned A.G.A. the applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 304 B IPC and therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution. The applicant is therefore under a heavy burden to explain as to how the occurrence has taken place. Up to this stage, no such material has been brought on record, on the basis of which the innocence pleaded by the applicant can be considered. Consequently, no case for bail is made out.
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 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 :- 30.10.2018 Arshad