Allahabad High Court
Hansraj vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86839 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35497 of 2023 Applicant :- Hansraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi,Kapil Tiwari,Mohit Sharan Tomar,Nasim Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Kapil Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
3. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Hansraj, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 264 of 2019, under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kadar Chowk, District Budaun.
4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38197 of 2021 (Hansraj vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that trial in the present matter has started in which till date only two prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 20.12.2019 and the trial will take some more time and thus the applicant be released on bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2021 considering the same on merits. The said order reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Hansraj, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 264 of 2019, under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Kadar Chowk, District Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is husband of the deceased, but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and died on 09.11.2019. The information about her death was given to her family members, who came and attended her cremation. While the same was going on, an information was given to the police, after which, the police came to the cremation place and collected the burnt parts of the dead body and sent them for post-mortem examination. On 21.11.2019 after about 12 days of the incident, first information report has been lodged, for which there is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging the same. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased was never tortured by the applicant. The applicant or his family members has never demanded any dowry. The implication of the applicant is false and incorrect. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that Suraj Pal, Anokhey, Shyam Lal and Raj Pal are independent witnesses, who have stated that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance after a quarrel with her husband, paragraph 17 and annexure 7 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 23 of the affidavit and is in jail since 20.12.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the applicant around two years back. She died in her matrimonial home. The death is unnatural. The applicant is named in the first information report. There is allegation against the applicant. He is the husband of the deceased. The applicant and his family members were trying to cremate the dead body of the deceased in a clandestine manner, after which, information about the same was given to the police, then inquest was conducted and remains of dead body were taken and sent for post-mortem examination, which could not testify regarding the cause of death. It is next argued that as such the prayer for bail of the applicant should be rejected as the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is husband of the deceased. He is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. The cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. The dead body was taken to the cremation place for cremation, from where the remains of the same was taken and sent for post-mortem examination. There is no explanation coming forth from the side of the applicant, who is husband of the deceased, as to why and how his wife died in her matrimonial home. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."
8. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The trial in the matter is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. There is no fresh and new ground to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Naresh