Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49286 of 2018 Applicant :- Sudhawati @ Subhawati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Mr. Navneet Kumar Mishra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Navneet Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the complainant.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Usha Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.- Baresar. District-Ghazipur during the pendency of the trial of the above mentioned crime number.
Perused the record.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the Devar of the applicant, namely, Arjun Ram was solemnized with Lakshmi on 06.06.2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, even before the expiry of a period of two months from the date of marriage of the Devar of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 01.08.2018, in which the Devrani of the applicant, namely, Smt. Lakshmi died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 02.08.2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of her family members but on the information given by Ambikaram-the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 02.08.2018 by the father of the deceased, namely, Ambikaram, which came to be registered as Case Crime No.0074 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.- Baresar. District-Ghazipur.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons, namely, Arjun Ram-husbad, Chhotelal-father-in-law, Sudhawati-mother-in-law, Arvind Ram-Devar, Usha Devi-Jethani (the applicant herein) and Umesh Ram-Jeth of deceased were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 02.08.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, no other external injury was wound on the body of the deceased. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 18.10.2018 only against five of the named accused. However Umesh Ram, Jeth of the deceased and a named accused, have been excluded. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet dated 10.08.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 Sudhawati @ Subhawati is the mother-in-law of the deceased, whereas the applicant no.2 Chhotey Lal is the father- in-law of the deceased. Both the applicants are middle aged persons. The applicants are in jail since 4.8.2018. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. It is then submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The deceased had a quarrel with her husband and it is in view of the aforesaid, that the deceased has taken the aforesaid step to and her life. The absence of any external ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased clearly speaks of the bona fide of the present applicants. There is no statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor there is any dying declaration of the deceased. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry as well as the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for the non-fulfiment of dowry. Even otherwise, the applicants cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that the present applicants are liable to be enlarged in bail.
Per contral learned AGA as well as Mr. Navneet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail. They submitted that the deceased was a young lady aged about 21 years and she has died within two months from the date of her marriage at her matrimonial home. As such the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. The present applicants are charge-sheeted accused. As such presumption is available to the prosecution in terms of Section 113B of the Evidence Act. However, the present applicants have failed to discharge the burden as they have not been able to disclose the manner of occurrence as well as the cause of occurrence. It is thus submitted that the bail application of the applicants is liable to be rejected. It is then submitted that the present applicants cannot claim parity with the Jethani of the deceased as she was residing separately from the present applicants. Consequently, the bail application of the present applicants is liable to be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, but in view of the facts as noted herein above and also upon perusal of the material brought on record, I do not find any good reason to grant indulgence to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant 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 one year 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 Ravi Kant