Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37128 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Sharda Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Ranjan Tripathi,Ravindra Kumar
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sarvesh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants today in Court, is taken on record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by the applicants-Smt. Sharda Devi and Ram Kishore Yadav seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Roora, District-Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) during the pendency of the trial.
4. Perused the record.
5. It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicants, namely, Sushil was solemnized with Neeta in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs on 29.04.2016. However, just after the expiry of a period of two years and two months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicants, an unfortunate incident occurred on 08.07.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicants, namely, Neeta suffered deep and superficial burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicants that after coming to know of the occurrence, the son of the applicants immediately took the victim to the District Hospital, Kanpur Dehat, where ultimately she died. A memo to that effect is alleged to have been sent by the ward boy of the aforesaid Hospital. The inquest of the body of the deceased was performed on 09.07.2018. The inquest memo contains a recital that the inquest has been performed on the information given by the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of the deceased. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 09.07.2018 by the father of the deceased, namely, Brij Kishore, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0213 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Roora, District-Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat).
6. In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons, namely, Sushil- husband, Ram Kishore-father-in-law, Smt. Sharda-mother- in-law, Radha-Nanad, Pranshu-Devar, of the deceased whereas Sarita-Mausi of the husband of the deceased and Shiv Kumar-Mamiya Sasur of deceased were nominated as named accused. A perusal of the F.I.R. will further go to show that the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for demand of dowry have specifically been levelled. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted two days after the occurrence, i.e. on 10.07.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries. The Doctor further noted that the smell of Kerosene was present on the body of the deceased and the deceased had sustained superficial to deep burn injuries all over the body to the extent of 98%. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 28.09.2018 only against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, who are the applicants herein. Rest of the named accused have been excluded. Upon submission of the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2018, cognizance was taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 06.10.2018. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. The applicants are in Jail since 04.08.2018. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. Learned counsel for the applicants next contends that the applicants were residing separately from the family of the deceased and to buttress his submissions, reliance is placed upon the Ration Card of the present applicants, photocopy of which is on record at page 32 of the paper-book. It is thus urged that since the applicants were living separately from the family of the deceased hence the applicants have no concern with the personal life of the deceased and her husband. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that the present applicants being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased, are liable to be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate and Alok Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that the applicants are the charge-sheeted accused under Section 304B I.P.C. as such, presumption is available to the prosecution. It is next submitted that the deceased, who was a young girl, aged about 23 years, has died just after two years and two months from the date of her marriage on account of ante-mortem superficial to deep burn injuries to the extent of 98% on her body. Therefore, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the Ration Card does not go to show that the applicants were residing separately from the family of the deceased. Referring to the material on record in the Case Diary, he submits that during the pendency of the investigation, it has come that the applicants were residing in the same house where the deceased was residing. As such, the submission of separate living urged by the learned counsel for the applicants is not reliable. On the aforesaid factual premise, they submit that the applicants are not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. The bail application of the applicants is thus liable to be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and upon considering the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow the present application. Consequently, the bail application of the applicants is hereby rejected.
10. However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within one year provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.
11. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 YK