Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49231 of 2018 Applicant :- Sonu @ Saddam @ Farhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar,Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Sonu @ Saddam @ Farhan seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 416 of 2017 (State Vs. Sonu @ Saddam @ Farhan), arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2016, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut, during the pendency of the trial of the above mentioned trial, which is said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1, Meerut.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Farjana on 15.5.2018 in accordance with the Muslim Ries and Customs. Just after expiry of a period of one year and 7 months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 08.07.2016, in which the wife of the applicant sustained burn injuries. It is the case of the applicant that immediately after the occurrence, the victim was rushed to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi and she was admitted in the aforesaid hospital on 8.7.2016 itself. The victim underwent treatment at the aforesaid hospital from 09.07.2016 to 14.7.2017. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid occurrence was lodged on the next day i.e. 19.7.2016 by Mohd. Shariq, the brother of the victim, which was registered as Case Crime No. 262 of 2016, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut. In the aforesaid first information report, six persons, namely, Sonu alias Saddam, (husband) Imran, (father-in-law), Smt. Bhoori, (mother-in-law), Farman (Jeth), Aamna, (Jethani) and Riyasat Ali (cousin father-in-law) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. Unfortunately, the victim succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by him on 14.7.2016. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 14.7.2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was Septicaemia as a result of burn injuries. The doctor further described the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased as follows:-
"Infeated ante mortem epidermal-dermal thermal burns present all over the body except face, head, and genitalia accounting about ninety percent of total body surface area burn surface is unhealthy granulation tissue is present at margin. Sringing of hair present at places. Red line of demarcation present between burnt and unburnt area."
The police on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation of the aforesaid case crime number coupled with the death of the victim on 14.7.2018 altered the case under section 304 B IPC. On the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet dated 16.3.2017 only against the applicant, whereas investigation in respect of other accused was said to be continued. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the Court concerned, vide cognizance taking order dated 13.4.2017. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as S.T. No. 416 of 2017. However, no details have been furnished in the affidavit accompanying the bail application with regard to the further proceedings, which has taken place in the aforesaid sessions trial even though more than two years have rolled by from the date of cognizance taking order dated 13.4.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 21.01.2017 As such the applicant has undergone almost 1 year and 11 months of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The bona fide of the applicant and his family members is further explicit from the fact that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where she underwent treatment from 9.4.2017 to 14.7.2018. The deceased has sustained burn injuries in an accidental fire and not on account of any deliberate act of the present applicant. It is thus urged that the present applicant though he is the husband of the deceased is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 22 years and she has died just after 1 year and 7 months from the date of her marriage at her matrimonial home on account of burn injuries sustained by her. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. It is then submitted that after the occurrence has taken place, the statement of the deceased was recorded on 8.7.2016, photo copy of which is on the record at page 47 of the paper book. A perusal of the said statement clearly goes to show that the deceased has clearly implicated the present applicant along with others in the commission of the alleged crime. It may be noted that from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased a male child was born, who is said to be aged about 10 months on the date of occurrence. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. The bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
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.
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.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 HSM