Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45259 of 2018 Applicant :- Yakoob Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Yakoob Ali, seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 186 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Mohd. Rafi was solemnized with Madhuri @ Soni on 17.6.2014 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of three years and seven months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 8.3.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant sustained deep burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the occurrence had taken place, the victim was rushed to Hallet Hospital, Kanpur to save her life. Ultimately, the victim succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her on 13.3.2018. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 13.3.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by Mohd. Sultaf the brother of the deceased. In the opinion of the panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 13.3.2018 by Mohd. Sultaf the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 099 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons namely, Rafi (husband), Yaqoob (father-in-law), mother-in-law, Shamshad, Aslam, Sahim (Devars) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 14.3.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that cause of death of the deceased was septicemic shock as a result of ante mortem burn injury. The doctor further described the ante-mortem burn injury found on the body of the deceased as follows:
" Body burn superficial to deep about 85-90% with infected pus filled various area of wound on external burned part of body"
Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 8.6.2018 against mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the deceased. It is submitted that upon submission of the charge sheet dated 8.6.2018, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 13.6.2018. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of sessions. Accordingly, S.T. No. 186 of 2018 came to be registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. However, the applicant is innocent. He is in jail since 11.6.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The deceased has committed suicide by self immolation. The occurrence has taken place in the washroom situate outside the house of the applicant in day hours. As such, it cannot be said that the deceased had died on account of a deliberate act of the present applicant. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that deceased was a young lady aged about 23 years and she has died just after three years and seven months of her marriage at her marital home. Circumstances in which the death has taken place, clearly go to suggest that the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. The applicant is charge sheeted accused under section 304 B IPC also. As such presumption is available to the prosecution. Consequently, the burden is upon the applicant himself to explain the cause of accurrence in terms of Section 113 B and also the manner of occurrence in terms of Section 106 of Evidence Act. However, up to this stage, the applicant has failed to discharge his burden. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments 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 of the present applicants 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 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.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Arshad