Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41755 of 2018 Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Kailash Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Kailash Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Vipin seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 570 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Hapur Dehat, District-Hapur during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
3. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Jyoti @ Mohini on 10.02.2012 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, after the expiry of a period of more than five years and seven months from the date of the marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 29.09.2017, in which the wife of the applicant committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 30.09.2017 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the brother of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 30.09.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0570 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Hapur Dehat, District-Hapur.
4. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Vipin (the husband), Narpat Singh (the father-in-law) and the mother-in-law (not named) of deceased were nominated as named accused. A perusal of the F.I.R. will further go to show that the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for demand of dowry have specifically been levelled. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 30.09.2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 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 21.12.2017 against all the named accused. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 23.12.2017. Consequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2018 (State Vs. Vipin and ohters) came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-IInd, Hapur. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the Cognizance Taking Order dated 23.12. 2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the said fact is known to the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is in Jail since 01.10.2017. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. No external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark. Upto this stage, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the applicants have even abetted in the commission of the crime. The deceased has died not on account of any deliberate act committed by the applicant, which may lead to the death of his wife, i.e, the deceased. He therefore submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the occurrence has taken place within seven years of marriage of the applicant. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. He further invited the attention of the Court to the statement of the first informant recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is on the record at page 34 of the paper-book to the submit that the first informant has supported the allegation regarding demand of dowry. Therefore, the presumption arising out of an offence under Section 304B I.P.C as per Section 113 of the Evidence Act is available to the prosecution against the applicant. The burden is upon the applicant to show his innocence. It is further submitted that since the trial of the case has commenced, therefore, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the trial itself instead of considering the bail application of the applicant on merits. On the aforesaid factual premise, he submits that the applicant being the husband of the deceased, is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. The bail application of the applicant is thus liable to be rejected.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record and the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow the present application. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
8. However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within one year provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.
9. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 YK