Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22011 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Savitri Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri,Vidya Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manvendra Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State in Court today, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Court today. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the present bail applicant.
3. Perused the record.
4. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Savitri Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 319 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jahanbad, District Pilibhit during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
5. From the record it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Guddu was solemnized with Monika on 24th April, 2017. However, after the expiry of a period of little more than four months from the date of marriage of the of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 25th August, 2017, in which the daughter-in-law of the deceased died. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25th August, 2017 on the information not given by any member of the family of the applicant or the applicant herself but by the father and grand-father of the deceased, namely, Ram Kumar and Chheda Lal. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was caused by the in-laws of the deceased in lust of dowry, as such it was said to be homicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25th August, 2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem smothering. The Doctor further noted that the deceased died before two-three days. The Doctor further found four ante-mortem external injuries on the body of the deceased, namely, (i) contusion seen right and left shoulder including front of neck, (ii) contusion deep seated over sternum, (iii) contusion inner aspect of upper and lower lip inner part, eruption of teeth present, and (iv) contusion over right side of scalp. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 25th August, 2017 by the father of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0319 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jahanbad, District Pilibhit. In the aforesaid first information report, as many as three persons, namely, Guddu the husband, Savitri the mother-in-law the applicant herein and Babu Ram the father-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. Further progress of the case after the lodging of the first information report has neither been detailed in the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application nor in the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the applicant could not detail the same at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is an old man. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. She is in jail since 30th September, 2107. As such on date the applicant has spent a period of more one year incarceration. He further contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated along with her husband and the son for harassment only. The applicant was not present at the place of the occurrence. The applicant has no concern qua death of the deceased. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that in the present case the applicant has been nominated as an accused under Section 304-B I.P.C. and therefore, presumption is available to the prosecution. The burden is upon the applicant himself to explain as to under what circumstances, the occurrence in question took place. Upto this stage, there is no such material on the record on the basis of which it can be presumed that the applicant is innocent. He further submits that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem smothering. The Doctor further noted that the deceased died before two-three days before. The Doctor further found four ante-mortem external injuries on the body of the deceased, namely, (i) contusion seen right and left shoulder including front of neck, (ii) contusion deep seated over sternum, (iii) contusion inner aspect of upper and lower lip inner part, eruption of teeth present, and (iv) contusion over right side of scalp. The bona fide of the applicant appears to be suspicious. In the light of the material on the record as noted herein above, the learned A.G.A. vehemently submits that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
8. 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 but without commenting 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 stands rejected.
9. 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.
10. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Sushil/-