Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16448 of 2018 Applicant :- Surmesh Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Jai Raj Singh Tomar,Kavita Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajai Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajai Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Surmesh Mishra with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.455 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR has been lodged on 30.07.2017 at 18.10 hours by father of the deceased alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Neelam (deceased) was solemnized with the applicant on 12.06.2015 and he has given sufficient dowry as per his status, inspite of that the accused persons demanded Rs.10 lacs and a Santro Car for which the deceased was being harassed. It is also stated that a Panchayat was convened and case was compromised, but the applicant and his family members continued torturing the deceased for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. In the meantime the applicant filed Case No.560 of 2016 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce which came into knowledge of the informant after the notice was sent to him. The aforesaid case was withdrawn on interference by the informant and on 27.03.2017 the applicant took the deceased to stay alongwith him to Jhansi in campus of Bundelkhand University where he was working. On 27.07.2017 the informant received a phone call from Atul Khare, who is employee of the same University where the applicant was working, regarding death of his daughter under suspicion circumstances. He was surprised and shocked on receiving the information and reached to the place of incident.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that present FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of three days for which no plausible explanation has been given, however, the applicant after informing his brother had rushed to the hospital and had requested Atul Khare, who was staying in the same campus and working in the same University where the applicant was working, to give an information to his in-laws. After receiving the information, the in-laws came to the place of incident.
The inquest was conducted on the same day, i.e. 27.07.2017 in the presence of Arvind Kumar (father of deceased), Manish Dubey (brother of deceased), Virendra Kumar Dwivedi (Mausa of deceased), Santosh Kumar Mishra (father-in-law) and Surmesh Mishra (applicant-husband) at 13.10 hours. In the post mortem report, superficial burn injuries were found but the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.
Perusal of the inquest report goes to show that the cause of death is said to be by electric shock. Apart from the burn injuries there are no external injuries on the body of deceased. No explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR has been given whereas the information was received by the first informant - father of the deceased well in time, he was present at the time of inquest but never raised any objection regarding death of her daughter under suspicion circumstances. Doctor K.K. Jain and Dr. D.K. Rai, who conducted the post mortem also stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased are due to electric shock. There are three superficial dry burn injures and the cause of death cannot be ascertained but it was an unnatural death.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the husband has discharged his burden, hence he is entitled for bail. There is nothing on record to show that the death of deceased has occurred due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand or harassment. It has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant that he had filed a divorce petition as the deceased was not interested to stay with him as his wife and had inclination towards some other person but on intervention of the family members, the matter was compromised and he withdrew the divorce petition after which they were living happily. In the present circumstances, the repetitious harassment and cruelty by the husband is not conclusively proved as the death is due to electric shock and had no casual connection with cruel behavior based on a dowry demand. As per the report of the forensic lab, submitted on 17.08.2017, no poison was found in the viscera which was preserved.
It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.09.2017. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Anand Sri./-