Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47039 of 2018 Applicant :- Subhash Saingar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Singh,Babita Upadhyay,Devesh Kumar Shukla,Kamla Kant Mishra,Sanjeev Kumar Gaur,Varun Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Puneet Srivastava
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned private counsel, appearing for the informant, as well as Sri S.B. Maurya, learned AGA, and perused the record.
By means of this application, the accused-applicant, Subhash Saingar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 479 of 2018, under Section-302 I.P.C., Police Station-Qwrsi, District- Aligarh, is seeking enlargement on bail.
Learned counsel for accused-applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number whereas co- accused, Sheetal Devi. has confessed offence of murder, committed by her, and initially chargesheet was filed against her only; subsequently, on the basis of confession, chargesheet against the present accused-applicant was filed; present accused-applicant was not present on the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence, rather a plea of alibi was taken; he is of no concern with above occurrence and co-accused, Sheetal Devi, has already been enlarged on bail by another coordinate Bench of this Court, hence bail has been prayed for.
Learned private counsel, appearing for the informant, has vehemently opposed the bail application with this contention that while granting bail to co-accused, Sheetal Devi, argument of learned counsel for the present accused- applicant was that there occurred some dispute between the deceased and Sheetal Devi in which Sheetal Devi and the deceased scuffled with each other. Thereafter Sheetal Devi made a complaint to her in-laws and on the basis of above, after making a differentiation, the Court has granted bail to co-accused, Sheetal Devi. Hence accusation against present accused-applicant is at different footing than Sheetal Devi. Under Section 106 of Evidence Act, present accused-applicant, being the husband, was to explain the fact, specifically, within his knowledge, of cause of death of wife by throatling in his house and he is expected to explain it and in his statement recorded, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is a confession of throatling of deceased, hence offence is very heinous, bail application be rejected.
Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Perusal of bail order, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.46827 of 2018, Smt. Sheetal Devi vs. State of U.P., reveals that argument of learned counsel for the informant is substantited by the order of the Court. There is differentiation of accusation in between Subhash Saingar and Smt. Sheetal Devi. Admitted fact is that the deceased was legally wedded wife of Subhas Sainger, present accused-applicant. Second marriage was performed with Sheetal Devi and this was a reason of death of the deceased by throatling in her nuptial house. Second marriage, after valid dissolution of first marriage by a competent, is not there. The statement of informant, Gopal, as well as other family members, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is to this effect that eight days ago, a complaint of torturing was made by the deceased to her parents. Information of unnatural death of deceased, by hanging herself, was given by Rajvir Singh, father-in-law of the deceased to the informant, but this was not the case, rather it was a case of strangulation, having ante mortem injuries over neck of the deceased, meaning thereby, this link again was in favour of prosecution and under explanation to Section 106 of Evidence Act, there is confession of this murder by the present accused- applicant.
Under all above facts and circumstances, heinousness of offence of murder, likelihood of tapering with evidence, in case of release on bail as well as fleeing from course of justce, it is not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, this Bail Application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 bgs/