Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24721 of 2021 Applicant :- Siyaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Siyaram seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 400 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Pooranpur, District Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison in her parental house. It is argued that it is wrongly shown by the prosecution that she died in her matrimonial house. It is argued that the applicant is working and residing in Kathgodam for earning his livelihood and he reached the place of occurrence on hearing about the death of his wife and conducted cremation and other rituals. It is further argued that as per the First Information Report, it is alleged that the deceased died in the night of 19.08.2019 but the First Information Report has been registered on 20.08.2019 i.e. after 24 hrs which is unexplained. It is further argued that the applicant is having two children aged about 3 years and 1 and half years and the entire family being the father of the applicant and the mother of the applicant have been implicated in the present case. It is further argued that two co-accused being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.09.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11895 of 2020 (Surjala Vs. State of U.P.) and 22334 of 2020 (Baburam Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the orders have been annexed as annexure 8 to the affidavit. It is argued that although in the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained by the doctor and the viscera report was preserved but in the viscera report, copy of which annexed as annexure 7, the chemical analyst has found aluminum phosphide poison in the viscera. It is argued that forcible administration of the said poison is not possible. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant is false. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 3 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.09.2020.
Per contra, learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of the deceased took place after three and half years of marriage in her matrimonial house. It is further argued that postmortem examination shows as many as three injuries on the body of the deceased and the injury no.1 being abraded contusion was on the right side temporal region of head and on dissection of the said injury, haematoma was seen on the right temporal area. It is argued that the injuries as received by the deceased are unexplained. It is further argued that the cause of death is poison as has come from the report of the chemical analyst and there is no reasonable and plausible explanation by the applicant regarding the death of the deceased in her matrimonial house. It is argued that the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died in her matrimonial house within seven years of marriage. There are three other bodily injuries found on the dead body in which the injury no.1 was having haematoma. The cause of death is poison. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)