Allahabad High Court
Aman Singla vs State Of U.P. on 25 April, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53 of 2022 Applicant :- Aman Singla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Anurag Vajpeyi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Manish Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Atharva Dixit and Mr. Anurag Vajpeyi, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for first informant.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant- Aman Singla seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.166 of 2021, under Sections- 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Sector-39 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of Sessions Trial No. 748 of 2021 (State Vs. Aman Singhal) under Sections- 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Sector-39 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, now pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.
4. It is apposite to mention here that no counter affidavit was invited by the Court from first informant represented by Mr. Amit Daga, Advocate. However, irrespective of above, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of first informant to which applicant has also filed his rejoinder affidavit.
5. Record shows that marriage of applicant- Aman Singla was solemnized with Hina Garg on 28.10.2020. However, even before expiry of a period of six months from the date of marriage of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 07.04.2021 in which Hina Garg, the wife of applicant became unconscious. It is the case of applicant that she was immediately rushed to the hospital namely Prayag Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Sector-41 NOIDA by the applicant himself. The information with regard to admission of wife of the applicant namely Hina Garg at aforementioned hospital by applicant was also given at the concerned police station by aforementioned hospital as is evident from GD Entry No.41 dated 07.04.2021. Copy of the same is on record at page-70 of the paper book. Ultimately, Hina Garg, the wife of the applicant breathed her last at aforesaid hospital on 08.04.2021. It is apposite to mention here that in the interregnum neither the statement of Hina Garg, wife of the applicant, was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., nor any dying declaration of her was recorded.
6. Subsequent to above, an F.I.R. dated 08.04.2021 was lodged by first informant- Subhash Chand (father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.166 of 2021, under Sections- 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Sector-39 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Aman Singla (husband), Smt. Beena Rani (mother-in-law) and Mahendra Lal Singla (father-in-law) of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.
7. It needs to be noticed that at the time of occurrence, the parents of the deceased were also present in the house of applicant.
8. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is that marriage of Hina Garg, daughter of first informant, was solemnized with applicant- Aman Singla on 28.10.2020. A sum of Rs.2,75,00,000/- is alleged to have been spent by the father-in-law of applicant i.e. father of the deceased in the marriage of his daughter. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is alleged to have been given in dowry along with a gold chain and 8 ginnies (Gold coin of fifty paise diameter). The F.I.R. further states that at the time of marriage, the father-in-law of the daughter of first informant created a scene by raising demand of dowry to the tune of Rs.2 crores. From somewhere or the other, the father of the bride could arrange only a sum of Rs.30 lakhs, which was paid to the father-in-law of the daughter of first informant with the request that balance shall be paid subsequently. The F.I.R. also records that an Innova Crysta car and a plot at Panchkula (Haryana) valued at Rs.1 crore and 80 lacs was also given, jewellery weighing 1 kg. of gold (11 sets) is also alleged to have been given. Expenses to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs is said to have been incurred by the first informant in clothes, reception of barat etc. However, irrespective of above, the life of daughter of first informant was not at peace. Repeatedly, demand was raised that though her father had promised at the time of marriage to pay the balance amount, but the same has not been paid till date. On the eve of karwachauth, i.e. on 04.11.2020, the father-in-law of the deceased is said to have given a gold ring and clothes etc. to her daughter. However, the demand of alleged balance amount of dowry continued unabated. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that apart from committing mental cruelty upon the daughter of first informant, physical cruelty was also committed upon the daughter of first informant, on account of non-fulfilment of the additional demand of dowry. Subsequently, the daughter and the son-in-law of the first informant started residing separately in Supreme Tower Society, Sector-99, Noida, as applicant- Aman Singla, son-in-law of the first informant, had to join his duties as an I.R.S. officer.
9. The F.I.R. further states that even after having shifted to aforesaid place, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon daughter of first informant regularly. The F.I.R. also states that an LED TV valued at Rs.1 lac was given to pacify the relationship between the couple. Daughter of the first informant was pursuing her CA and LLB course. However, the same was disliked by applicant. The mobile phone of the deceased was changed on account of above and all contacts of the daughter of first informant are alleged to have been deleted. The F.I.R. also states that subsequently a fully automatic washing machine was given, which was not appreciated by the in-laws of the deceased.
10. Subsequent to above, the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted on 08.04.2021. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased was suicidal. Thereafter, the post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 08.04.2021 itself. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained, hence, viscera was preserved. However, no external or internal injury was found by the Autopsy Surgeon on the body of deceased.
11. The viscera report of the deceased has been received subsequently. In the opinion of Chief Medical Analyst, in the samples of the body of deceased, elements of tranquilizer namely Alprazolam were found.
12. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined various witnesses, the chronology of same is as under:-
"(i)The statement of first informant/father of the deceased was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 08.04.2021 as is evident from parcha no.1 of case diary. Same is also on record as Annexure-13 to the affidavit.
(ii) The second statement of first informant/father of the deceased was recorded on 28.05.2021. Same is evident from parcha no.7 of the case diary.
(iii) The statement of Mamta Rani (mother of the deceased) and Manik Garg (brother of the deceased) were also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The same are evident from parcha no.8 of case diary. Same are on record as Annexure-14 to the affidavit, collectively.
(iv) Statements of Deepak Garg and Prem Garg were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Same is evident from parcha no.9 of case diary. They are also on record as Annexure-15 to the affidavit, collectively.
(v) The statements of the priest, who conducted the marriage ceremony of applicant with deceased, namely, Pandit Bhagwati Prasad and Pandit Rakesh Somwal were also recorded. Same is explicit from parcha nos.13 and 22 of the case diary, respectively. Same are also on record as Annexure-16 to the affidavit, collectively.
(vi) The statement of Nidhi Singla (sister of applicant) was also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Same is evident from parcha no.14 of the case diary. Copy of same is on record as Annexure-17 to the affidavit. This witness also supplied certain material pertaining to the marriage of applicant. The legal formality for admitting the said material is also alleged to have been complied with.
(vii) The statements of independent witnesses namely Pawan Singla and Sanjeev were also recorded, which is as evident from parcha no.14 of the case diary. Thereafter, statements of Ashoka Goyal, Balkishan Bindal, Gopal Singla, Rajendra Goyal and Bhagwat Singh Sandhu were recorded, as evident from parcha no.16 of the case diary. This was followed by the statements of Ateesh Singh, Mangat Singh, Rajendra Pal, Surendra Garg and Kashmeer Singh, as is explicit, vide parcha no.16 of the case diary. Subsequently, statements of Satish Kumar Jain, Ashish Sood, Jeevan Kumar Singla and Satguru Singh were recorded, as is apparent from parcha no.17 of the case diary. Thereafter, statements of Devkant, Neha Gulati and Shyam Lal Jindal were recorded, as is manifest from parcha no.22 of the case diary. Statements of Beer Singh and Gaurav were recorded thereafter, as is evident from parcha no.23 of the case diary. Statements of Pawan Singla and Sanjeev alone are on record as Annexure-18 to the affidavit.
(viii) The statement of Meena Bansal (sister-in-law of first informant) was recorded on 28.06.2021, as is evident from parcha no.20 of the case diary. Same is also on record as Annexure-20 to the affidavit.
(ix) The third statement of the first informant/father of the deceased, namely, Subhash Chand was recorded on 29.06.2021, as is evident from parcha no.21 of the case diary. Same is also on record as Annexure-21 to the affidavit.
13. While the investigation was going on, Mahendra Lal (father-in-law of the deceased) was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31930 of 2021 (Mahendra Lal Vs. State of U.P.), which reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mahendra Lal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 166 of 2021, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Sector-39 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged on 08.04.2021 at about 14:10 hours by Subhash Chandra the father of the deceased, naming Aman Singla the husband of the deceased, Smt. Beena Rani the mother-in-law and Mahendra Lal Singla the father-in-law (the present applicant) is that the marriage of his daughter Heena Garg was solemnized with Aman Singla on 28.10.2020 in which he spent Rs. 2.75 crores out of which Rs. 15 lakhs was given as cash and jewellery was also given. In August 2020, the engagement ceremony was solemnized. On the day of marriage before taking marriage rounds, the applicant Mahendra Lal made a fuss and raised demand of dowry. Thereafter, the first informant beseeched before him and tried to pacify him and stated that he has already spent a lot of money but he did not agree and stated that his son is I.R.S. Officer and there were persons coming who had offered around six crores for the marriage. He said that he will not get the marriage ceremony done till Rs. 2 crore cash is given. After that with the help of his relatives, he somehow managed to collect Rs.30 lakh with difficulty and gave to the applicant with an assurance that the remaining amount would be given later. In the marriage, one Innova Crysta car and a plot of about Rs. 1.80 crore, gold weighing 1 kg and clothes etc. were also given.
4. Two days after marriage, his daughter called him on phone and told him that her in-laws being father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband are torturing her and asking for the remaining amount of dowry. On 04.11.2020 he gave a gold ring and clothes to his daughter and as soon as she went to her matrimonial house, her mother-in-law taunted and reiterated the demand of Rs. 2 crore again and stated that she will not be allowed to live in the house till the remaining amount of dowry is not given and tortured her. His daughter told him and her mother that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband used to assault her. Later on, his daughter started living with her husband in Noida Sector, 99 Supreme Tower Society as her husband joined his duty there. Aman used to torture her there also. His daughter told him on phone that Aman used to beat her and she asked him to come here and take her with him after which he along with his wife and son went in the flat and found that the parents of Aman were also present there. The matter has been settled between them with the help of relatives with great difficulty and a LED T.V. was also given after which Aman assured that he will not torture his wife but the greed did not stop and she was being tortured continuously. His daughter was preparing papers of final group of C.A. and was also studying LL.B. through online classes from Punjab University, Chandigarh, which was also objected by Aman and he used to say that she cannot compete with him. He used to tell her that he married her as a maid and she should always remain a shoe of his leg. He had not allowed her to study. Aman restricted the use of mobile to his wife and had deleted all the contacts so that she could not contact to anyone and whenever he comes back from office he would check her mobile regarding persons which she had talked.
5. On 16.1.2021, on the birthday of Aman, he had given a swinging chair to him on which he quarrelled a lot with his daughter and stated that her parents have given a very low quality chair and your standard is very low. On 13.01.2021, on the demand from the accused persons, he has given a fully automatic washing machine to them so that they may not torture his daughter. Aman used to mentally torture her and harass her on the saying of his parents. On 05.04.2021 Aman badly assaulted his daughter and then informed him on phone after which on 06.04.2021 he with his wife and his sister-in-law who lives in Chandigarh, reached to his daughter's house and saw her in a bad condition where she told him that Aman used to mentally torture her daily and used to tell her that she should leave home or die after consuming medicines. He would kill her if your parents do not fulfill the demand of dowry.
6. Both of them were consoled but Aman did not agree. The first informant consoled his daughter and in the morning, a fight again took place between them and both of them went inside the kitchen. The first informant, his wife and his sister-in-law were sitting in a room. After sometime his daughter came out of kitchen shouting and said that Aman has administered some medicines to her after which they asked Aman to take her to hospital and then she was taken to Pragya Hospital and provided treatment but she died in the night.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant, as per the admitted case of the prosecution itself, is a resident of Patiyala, Punjab and he does not reside in Noida. It is argued that the allegation regarding demand of dowry at the time of marriage, is false and incorrect story. In so far as the allegation of administering some medicines to the deceased is concerned, the same is upon Aman Singla the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the doctor conducting the postmortem examination did not find any external injury on the body of the deceased and cause of death could not be ascertained and hence viscera was preserved.
8. Learned counsel has further placed the note sheet of the hospital at which the deceased was taken at the very first time and has argued that she was brought in the emergency in serious condition as the case of consumption of tablets for suicidal attempt. It is argued that subsequently the deceased was given treatment but she could not be saved and died. The husband of the deceased brought her to the hospital for which a memo of the hospital is annexed as annexure 8 to the affidavit. In so far as the Innova Crysta car which was allegedly given is concerned, it is argued that the same has been purchased in the name of M/s Ganpati Bricks which is the firm of father of the deceased. It is further argued that the said plot referred to in the First Information Report, has been jointly purchased by the deceased and the husband Aman Singla. It is further argued that the applicant is the resident of Patiyala, Punjab for which Aadhar Card and Driving License of the applicant have been placed before the Court which are annexed as Annexure R.A.-1 to the rejoinder affidavit.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in so far as the incident dated 06.04.2021 is concerned, the applicant as per the case of the prosecution itself, was not present at the house where the said incident has taken place. It is argued that as per the F.I.R. itself, on the day of incident the first informant, his wife and his sister-in-law were present along with Aman and the deceased where after some quarrel took place between the deceased and Aman in the kitchen, the deceased came out shouting that she had been administering some medicines by her husband. It is argued that as such the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of Aman Singla the husband of the deceased. It is further argued that Aman the husband of the deceased is in jail. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is a retired government servant. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 44 of the affidavit and is in jail since 08.04.2021.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that in so far as the applicant is concerned, he has been assigned the specific role of raising a demand of dowry of Rs. 2 crore at the time of marriage after which he was given Rs. 30 lakhs and then the marriage could be solemnized. It is further argued that the deceased has died after six months of marriage. It is further argued that the applicant was the head of the family and was under a bounden duty to see the things are right in his family. Further, it is argued that the applicant at the very outset has raised a demand of dowry at the time of marriage which was given and the remaining amount was pending and it was the reason for harassment, torture and ill treatment for the deceased. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved in the present case.
11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The role assigned to the applicant is of extending a demand of dowry at the time of marriage and then continuing to demand the remaining amount. The applicant was not present at the time of incident when the deceased consumed some medicines and died.
12. The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused Aman Singla.
13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
14. Let the applicant Mahendra Lal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other should be of local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
15. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
16. The bail application is allowed.
17. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
18. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
19. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
14. Similarly, the mother-in-law of the deceased, Beena Rani was enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32434 of 2021 (Beena Rani Vs. State of U.P.), which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2021, under Sections 304B, 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sector- 39 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that three persons were named in the first information report. The role of administering medicine due to which she died, has been levelled against the husband of the deceased and the co-accused Mahendra Lal father-in-law of the deceased, has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31930 of 2021, the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, therefore, she is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. There is no possibility of the applicant 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. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and she is languishing in jail since 08.04.2021.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that co-accused has already been released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, enlargement of co-accused Mahendra Lal on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Beena Rai involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other should be of local persons) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
15. On the basis of statements of witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as other material collected by Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, which according to him is substantially adverse to the named accused, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge-sheet. He, accordingly, submitted the charge-sheet dated 05.07.2021, whereby all the three named accused have been charge-sheeted under sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In the aforesaid charge-sheet following have been nominated as prosecution witnesses of fact:-
"Subhash Chandra, Smt. Mamta Rani, Manik Garg, Deepak Garg, Prem Kumar, Pandit Bhawani Prasad, Nidhi, Pawan Singla, Sanjeev, Ateesh Singla, Ashish Sood, Ashok Goel, Bal Kishan Bindal, Kashmir Singh, Jeevan Kumar Singla, Mangal Singla, Rajendra Goel, Rajendra Pal Singla, Bhagwant Singh Sandhu, Satguru Singh, Satish Kumar Jain, Surendra Garg, Meena Bansal, Shyam Lal Jindal, Pandit Rakesh Semwal, Gaurav and Veer Singh."
16. After submission of aforementioned charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 07.05.2021. As offence complained of is triable by Court of Sessions, accordingly, concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 748 of 2021 (State Vs. Aman Singla) came to be registered, which is now said to be pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.
17. Counsel for the parties jointly submit that upto this stage, one prosecution witness of fact namely P.W.1, Subhash Chand (first informant/father of the deceased) has been examined. The photocopy of the statement of P.W.1 was placed before the Court, which was taken on record.
18. Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Manish Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Atharva Dixit and Mr. Anurag Vajpeyi, the learned counsel for applicant contends that even though applicant is the husband of deceased, named as well as charge-sheeted accused, but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. with regard to demand of dowry and commission of physical/mental cruelty upon the deceased, on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are false and concocted. As such applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number.
19. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of aforesaid submission, took the Court to the F.I.R. in detail. In his submission, the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., is not only improbable but also highly exaggerated. The factum regarding dowry given at the time of marriage as alleged in the F.I.R. is false on the face of record, inasmuch as, the vehicle Toyota Crysta, which is alleged to have been given in dowry to applicant is registered in the name of firm of the father-in-law of applicant/ first informant. The plot at Panchkula was purchased, vide sale deed dated 24.11.2020. The aforesaid purchase was jointly made by applicant along with his wife i.e. the deceased. Half of the sale price was paid by the applicant himself. The said submission is sought to be evidenced from the sale deed, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure- CA-8 to the counter affidavit filed by first informant. Reference has also been made to the bank statements of Aman Singla. Copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit.
20. On the aforesaid premise, the learned Senior Counsel contends that once specific instances regarding giving of dowry to the applicant have been found to be false then the entire prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. will fall like a house of cards.
21. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the F.I.R., it is alleged that an LED TV was given by first informant to his daughter valued at Rs.1 lac. The recital so contained in the F.I.R. is factually incorrect. The said averment is sought to be dislodged on the basis of the receipt of the LED TV, copy of which is on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. The submission so urged is that aforesaid LED TV was purchased by applicant himself.
22. It is then contended that no doubt, the applicant, Aman Singla is the husband of deceased and is working as an Indian Revenue Service Officer, but the marriage of applicant was not an extra-ordinary one as is established from the details mentioned in the F.I.R. with regard to the expenditure incurred by the father-in-law in the marriage of his daughter with applicant. It is thus contended that marriage of applicant was just an ordinary marriage, wherein certain goods were given at the time of marriage. The same is not uncommon in a Hindu marriage.
23. Learned Senior Counsel has then taken the Court to the documents pertaining to the admission of deceased in the hospital, the information regarding same, given at the police station and thereafter the post-mortem report of the deceased. On the cumulative strength of above, it is urged by learned Senior Counsel that bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that she was immediately taken to hospital by applicant and information regarding serious health of the wife of applicant which according to him was in pursuit of an attempt by the wife herself to commit suicide was given at the police station also. The absence of any ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased also speaks of the bonafide of applicant.
24. It is then contended by Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel that at the time of occurrence, the parents of the deceased were present in the house of applicant themselves. Parents of the deceased have also been examined by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. and they have not alleged that any such act was committed by applicant, which may lead to the death of the deceased.
25. Attention of the Court was then invited to the report of Chief Chemical Analyst and on basis thereof, it is sought to be contended that the deceased had consumed tranquilizer namely Alprazolam in excess quantity. The aforesaid consumption must have been taken at least 6-8 hours before she was admitted to the hospital as the drug so taken well act upon the body after expiry of a sufficient period. It, therefore, cannot be said that any such incident occurred immediately, before the victim was rushed to Prayag Hospital.
26. With regard to the bona fide and the conduct of the applicant, learned Senior Counsel submits that the wife of applicant i.e. deceased was pursuing her Chartered Accountancy course and was also pursuing Law from Punjab University, Chandigarh. It was in pursuit of above that applicant had applied for his transfer to Chandigarh as is evident from the document appended as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. Reference has also been made to the mark-sheets of the IVth Semester and the Vth Semester examinations undertaken by the deceased in respect of her Law Degree course. The said examinations are alleged to have been undertaken by the deceased after her marriage and she is said to have secured 73.8% and 82% respectively. Aforesaid itself is an important circumstance to conclude that it is patently wrong to say that life of Hina Garg (daughter of the first informant) was not at peace after marriage.
27. On the basis of above, the learned Senior Counsel contends that death of the deceased is a suicidal death. Upto this stage, there is no such material on the basis of which it can be definitely concluded that applicant has abetted or instigated in the commission of alleged crime. No doubt, the deceased is the wife of applicant, but it appears that the deceased being a short-tempered lady, took the extreme step of ending her life by committing suicide in the manner noted above.
28. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the statement of the first informant/father of the deceased was recorded thrice by the Investigating Officer. Drawing a parallel with the same, learned Senior Counsel contends that the first informant has improved upon his subsequent statements. As such, he has not remained consistent. Attention of the Court was also drawn to the statements of the priest, namely, Pandit Bhagwati Prasad and Pandit Rakesh Semwal, which are on record as Annexure-16 to the affidavit. On the basis of above, he contends that the occurrence alleged to have occurred at the time of marriage of applicant with deceased appears to have been engineered for the purpose of present criminal proceedings as the statements of the priest named above does not indicate about the happening of the alleged occurrence at the time of marriage.
29. In the back drop of aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has supported the genesis of his submissions that the death of deceased is a suicidal death. The narration in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of father of the deceased/ first informant before court below as P.W.1 goes to show that there is only allegation with regard to demand of dowry. From the aforesaid, it cannot be definitely inferred that there was an immediate demand of dowry by the applicant from the first informant before the death of deceased. In the absence of any allegation with regard to immediate demand of dowry, the necessary ingredient for a charge under section 304B I.P.C. is absent. Though commission of cruelty upon deceased is alleged, but no complaint regarding same was made before any public/police authority, nor any criminal proceedings were ever initiated regarding the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that any criminality was committed upon deceased before her death. As such, the death of the deceased cannot be termed as a dowry death, but suicidal.
30. On the cumulative strength of above-noted submissions, the learned Senior Counsel contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is in jail since 08.04.2021. As such, he has undergone more than one year of incarceration. Furthermore, the charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
31. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed this bail application. They jointly submit that applicant is not only the husband of deceased, but is also a named as well as charge-sheeted accused. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in his favour. It is then contended that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 28.10.2020. The death of the wife of applicant has occurred on 08.04.2021 i.e. even before expiry of a period of six months from the date of marriage of the applicant with deceased. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. It is further submitted that the deceased was a young girl, aged about 26 years, at the time of her marriage. The death of the deceased has occurred in unnatural and suspicious circumstances. Allegations made in the F.I.R. are clear, categorical and unambiguous, which clearly go to show that additional demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage and on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon the deceased. Upto this stage, no such explanation has come forward from the applicant, on the basis of which it can be said that applicant has successfully discharged the burden of his innocence in terms of section 113 of Evidence Act. The fact that deceased has committed suicide just before six months of her marriage is itself an incriminating circumstance, which points at the guilt of the applicant. The death of the deceased is a dowry death and not suicidal as sought to be contended by the learned Senior Counsel. They, therefore, submit that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.Innocence of the applicant has been sought to be dislodged by Mr. Amit Daga, learned Senior Counsel with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by first informant. The discharge claimed by charge-sheeted accused has been rejected by court below.
32. It is lastly contended that the trial has already commenced and the first informant/father of the deceased has already been examined as P.W.1. This witness, in his deposition before court below, has supported the prosecution story. They, therefore, contend that interest of justice shall better be served in case the bail application filed by applicant is rejected with a direction to court below to conclude the trial itself within a time bound period.
33. In rejoinder, Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel has rejoined the submissions earlier urged by him. He further submits that the case in hand is a case of suicidal death and not a dowry death. In view of aforesaid distinction, the case has to be examined in the light of the fact as to whether, there is something on record on the basis of which, it can be inferred that applicant has actually abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of alleged crime. Though not for the sake of repetition but only to lend thrust to his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel submits that a clear dichotomy can be drawn in the present case. The prosecution story, insofar as, it alleges regarding giving of a four wheeler vehicle and a plot in dowry stands negated from the material on record. Similar is the position with regard to giving of LED TV by first informant subsequent to the marriage of applicant. Once the basic prosecution case with regard to giving of goods in dowry at the time of marriage and subsequent thereto falls like a house of cards, the allegation made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry to the tune of Rs.2 crores at the time of marriage appears to be wholly concocted and engineered for the purpose of present criminal proceedings. He further, submits that though the F.I.R. states that a sum of Rs.2,75,00,000/- were spent in the marriage of the applicant with deceased but the details of the same as mentioned in the F.I.R. clearly falsify the allegations that such a huge amount was spent in the marriage of applicant. Upto this stage, there is no evidence of giving Rs.30 lacs as dowry at the time of marriage. Once the basic prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. fails the allegation with regard to commission of physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased, on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are prima-facie false and concocted. The fact that deceased has committed suicide is clearly established from the viscera report of the deceased. The death of the deceased has occurred on account of the fact that deceased herself desire to terminate her life and not on account of any overt or covert act of the applicant or to any pre-conduct of the applicant leading to the suicidal death of the deceased. The absence of any proceedings against applicant or any of his family members prior to the death of the deceased by way of an F.I.R., complaint, etc. also goes to bely the allegations made in the F.I.R. regarding commission of physical/mental cruelty upon deceased before her death. The averment made in the counter affidavit has been sought to be dislodged by submitting that in the counter affidavit, it has been repeatedly averred that the deceased was administered poison whereas the viscera report disproves the same.
34. Having heard Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Manish Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Atharva Dixit and Mr. Anurag Vajpeyi, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of record and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and accusations made but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
35. Let the applicant, Aman Singla be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
36. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Saif