Allahabad High Court
Ramkesh vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151741 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26072 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramkesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gufran Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Gufran Ahmad Khan, 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-Ramkesh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Rajpura, District-Sambhal during the pendency of trial.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 12.02.2016, a prompt FIR dated 12.02.2016 was lodged by first informant-Kishore Lal (Maternal uncle of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 84 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Rajpura, District-Sambhal . In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely - (1) Ramkesh (Husband), (2) Ram Sewak (Father-in-Law) and (3) Dharmendra (Devar of the deceased) have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR to the effect that named accused are guilty of committing the murder of the niece of the first informant.
6. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, the Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted the Autopsy of the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem strangulation. The Autopsy Surgeon found following anti-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased;-
"Ligature mark 11.00 cm x 1.5 cm on front and side of neck 2.5 cm below Lt. angle of mandible 5 cm below chin, 4 cm below Rt. angle of mandible"
7. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is the husband of the deceased, named and charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is in jail since 13.02.2016. As such, on date, he has undergone more than 7 years and 5 months of incarceration. The trial has commenced in the year, 2020 by way of Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2020 (State Vs. Ramkesh) and in spite of the fact that a period of almost 3 years has rolled by, the trial has not yet concluded. He contends that an accused also has a right to speedy trial. Since the delay in conclusion of trial is not attributale to the applicant, therefore, he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. In view of above and coupled with the period of incarceration undergone, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of the deceased (wife of the applicant) has occurred within 7 years of marriage. As per the medical opinion, the death of the deceased is on account of deliberate act of charge sheeted accused including the applicant. The occurrence has taken place in the marital home of the deceased. As such, the burden is upon the applicant not only to explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Section 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden. Attention of the Court was then invited to the document occurring at at page 97 of the paper book and on basis thereof, he contends that the charge has been framed against the applicant only on 03.02.2021. As such, on date, it cannot be said that substantial period has expired. On the above premise, he contends that even though the trial has not concluded yet the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail. On the cumulative strength of above, the learned A.G.A. contends that no good ground has been made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. As such, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.
9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of applicant, accusations made coupled with the fact that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, the death has occurred within 7 years of marriage in the house of the applicant, as per the medical opinion, the cause of death of the deceased is strangulation, no explanation has been offered by the applicant qua the manner of occurrence or his innocence, as per the material on record, it cannot be said that there is deliberate delay on behalf of the prosecutrix in the conclusion of the trial inasmuch as, the charge has been framed against charge sheeted accused only on 03.02.2021 but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
11. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
12. It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 28.7.2023 Vinay