Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19917 of 2018 Applicant :- Shyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2018, u/ss. 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Vrindaban, District- Mathura.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case because he is brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased. Therefore, he should be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the statement given by the first informant makes it clear that the allegations of committing cruelty upon the deceased are against the applicant as well as the husband both. This is a case where the deceased has been murdered. Reliance has been placed on the finding of the post mortem report which shows fracture of hyoid bone and the cause of death has been opined by the doctor as a result of asphyxia caused by compression over the neck. It has been emphasized by learned A.G.A. that a more incriminating feature in the case is that the dead body of the deceased was found in the nala from where it was taken out when the first informant had reached the placed of occurrence on getting such information. Submission is that this cannot be an act of single accused and it is so obvious that the accused persons have in an attempt to destroy the evidence tried to throw away the body of the deceased. In such strong incriminating background of circumstances the applicant cannot claim the benefit for being dever of the deceased as there is hardly any distinction in the allegations that have been made against him and the husband. Killing the deceased and disposing of her body cannot be a secret act about which the applicant may claim any ignorance. It is also deducible from the statement of the first informant that the dead body was taken out only when he had reached at the place of occurrence and it is a further incriminating circumstance as to why the applicant and another family members did not make any effort to take out the dead body of the deceased unless they were themselves complicit in the crime and why the same was done only when the first informant reached there. Contention is that in a case of this gravity no liberal view is called for.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail.
The prayer for bail of the applicant therefore stands rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Naresh