Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7045 of 2018 Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Shiv Kumar Singh in Case Crime No.649 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Chakari, District Kanpur Nagar.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava and Sri Padmaker Pandey, Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA alongwith Sri Kulveer Singh on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant is to the effect that he is the father in law, an old man of 70 years as asserted in paragraph 9 of the affidavit; that the cause of death opined in the autopsy report is ante-mortem strangulation annexed at page 46 of the paper-book; that learned Senior Advocate has invited the attention of the Court to the report of the F.S.L. at pages 53-54 of the paper-book where on page 54 at the foot of the report in a detailed note it has been opined after analysis of the crime scene that death appears to be a case of suicide expressed in the following words (in Hindi vernacular): "ghatna atmhatya ki prateet hoti hai."
It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the cause leading the deceased to commit suicide was her affiliation and perhaps more than that to one Sandeep Yadav antedating her marriage to the applicant, facts about which have been specifically stated in paragraphs 12, 18, 26 of the affidavit; that the learned Senior Advocate has invited the attention of the Court to conversations of a most intimate kind between the deceased and Sandeep Yadav last mentioned transcripts of which have been annexed to the paper-book, in particular, those that find record on page nos.108, 109, 111, 112, 113; that it is submitted that the deceased committed suicide frustrated over her marriage to the applicant and her unaccomplished affair with Sandeep Yadav where the in-laws have had no role to play; that it has further been submitted that there was never any demand of dowry or harassment or cruelty in connection with dowry immediately preceding the occurrence as asserted in paragraph 23 of the affidavit; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 02.07.2017.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. He has emphasized that death in this case is on account of strangulation which is not consistent with a case of suicide. To this, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate has said in quick rejoinder that there is a clear opinion from the F.S.L. that it is a case of suicide which makes the case fairly arguable on this point.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the evidence appearing in the case, particularly, conflicting medico legal reports and the evidence of recorded telephonic conversation between the deceased and Sandeep Yadav but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
It is made clear that any opinion expressed here will not affect the case of parties at the trial.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Shiv Kumar Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Shahroz