Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41563 of 2018 Applicant :- Srikant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manvendra Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Srikant seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 2016 (State versus Ramkanti & Others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
4. From the record it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Puja @ Priti on 24th May, 2012. From the aforesaid wedlock, a son was born, who is said to be aged about 4 years on date. However, before expiry of a period of four years to be specific after 3 years and 11 months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 26th April, 2016, in which the wife of the applicant died by committing suicide. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 26th April, 2016 on the information given by the applicant himself. According to the Panch witnesses the death of the deceased was suicidal. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 27th April, 2016. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem injuries. The Doctor further noted that there were three external injuries on the body of the deceased, namely, the ligature mark present around the neck, multiple abrasion present in right side of chest and skin peeled off around the neck and chest. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 27th April, 2016 by the father of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0122 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur. In the aforesaid first information report, as many as five persons, namely, Shrikant the husband i.e. the applicant herein, Shiv Shanker the father-in-law, Devendra the Devar, Roshni the Nanad and Ramkanti the mother-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused persons. Upon completion of statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Police has submitted charge-sheet dated 24th July, 2016 only against three of the named accused persons. Devendra the Devar and Roshni the Nanad of the deceased were excluded in the charge-sheet. Upon submission of the charge-sheet dated 24th July, 2016, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. As a result, Sessions Trial No. 148 of 2016 (State versus Ramkanti & Others) came to be registered and is said to be pending in the Court of Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) First, Hamirpur. On date P.W.-1 i.e the first informant has already been examined, who has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is young man. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. He is in jail since 1st May, 2016. As such on date the applicant has spent a period of more than two years and five months incarceration. He further contends that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. In the post-mortem report, the Doctor has noted three external injuries which were found on the body of the deceased. Injury no.1 is the ligature mark around the neck, the injury no.2 is the multiple abrasion on the right side of the chest and the injury no.3 is the status of the skin around the neck and chest near the ligature mark. He submits that the injury no. 2 cannot be said to have caused by any other person on the body of the deceased and it might be sustained when the the deceased tried to hang herself at the time of committing suicide. Another circumstance which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the present bail application is that from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased, one son was born who on date is aged about 4 years. Therefore, on the date of occurrence, he was aged about one year. In light of the aforesaid facts, he submits that it is impossible to believe that the applicant shall abet in the commission of the crime as noted herein above. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that in the present case the applicant has been charge-sheeted under Section 304-B I.P.C. and therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution. The burden is upon the applicant himself to explain as to under what circumstances, the occurrence in question took place. Upto this stage, there is no such material on the record on the basis of which it can be presumed that the applicant is innocent. Dealing with the complicity of applicant-accused and in light of the material on record, the learned A.G.A. vehemently submits that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. The learned A.G.A. further submits that the trial has already commenced and on date P.W.- i.e. the first informant has already been examined. As such, it is urged that instead of considering the bail application of the applicant, the interest of justice shall better be served in case the trial itself is directed to be expedited.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Sushil/-