Allahabad High Court
Chhotu @ Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165964 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32925 of 2023 Applicant :- Chhotu @ Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijendra Kumar Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Brijendra Kumar Raj, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This is a repeat application for bail filed by applicant Chhotu @ Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 275 of 2019, under Section 498A, 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Thariyaon, District- Fatehpur.
The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34092 of 2022 (Chhotu @ Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P). For ready reference the same is reproduced herein under:
"1. Heard Mr. Manvendra Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant, Chhotu @ Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.275 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. & under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Thariyaon, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 30.01.2019, a delayed F.I.R. dated 23.11.2019 was lodged by the first informant namely, Rambabu Vishwakarma (brother of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No.275 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. & under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Thariyaon, District- Fatehpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons namely, Chhotu @ Sushil Kumar Vishwakarma(applicant herein), Raju and mother-in-law Rekha have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that marriage of the sister of the first informant was solemnized with Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma six years prior to the lodging of F.I.R. . At the time of the marriage, sufficient amount of goods and dowry were given. However, in-laws of the sister of the first informant were dissatisfied with the same. Additional demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs was made. As demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled, physical/mental cruelty was committed upon the sister of the first informant. The F.I.R. further records that repeated criminality was committed upon the sister of the first informant. Ultimately, sister of the first informant was put to death by immolating. The brother-in-law of the first informant made an attempt to save the prosecutrix but he also sustained injuries and ultimately they both died.
6. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and the same is on record at page No.61 of the paper book. Perusal of the same clearly goes to show that the deceased has implicated the present applicant and her mother-in-law and another Devar namely, Chotu in committing the crime in question. In view of above, the learned A.G.A. submits that applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same.
10. Accordingly, this application fails and is liable to be rejected.
11. It is accordingly, rejected. "
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant who is devar of the deceased was residing separately from the family of the deceased. Moreover the applicant is in jail since 1.3.2021. As such, he has undergone more than two years and five months of incarceration. The trial has already commenced. The other named/charge-sheeted accused have already been enlarged on bail. On the above, premise, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that complicity of the applicant has emerged in the dying declaration of deceased. As such, no exception can be carved out in the case of applicant. The period of incarceration undergone, therefore, is irrelevant to enlarge the applicant on bail. He lastly submits that no new or good ground has been made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard Mr. Brijendra Kumar Raj, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State, and upon perusal of record this Court find that none of the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant are cogent enough to enlarge the applicant on bail. Moreover, this Court does not find any good or new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
In view of above, the bail application fails and is liable to be rejected.
It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023 Arshad