Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 10 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161381 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16612 of 2023 Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar,Ashutosh,Ram Krishna Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant - Virendra Kumar Chauhan to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 165 of 2021 under Sections 147, 494, 498A, 504, 506 and 306 I.P.C. read with 120B IPC, Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court vide order dated 21.10.2022.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant on 21.10.2022 the discharge application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 16.02.2023 and order was passed to frame charge under Sections 504, 506 and 306 IPC. It is argued that though, the FIR was lodged under Section 494 IPC also but the charge has not been framed under Section 494 IPC, while the second marriage of the applicant was shown as a motive of the suicide by the deceased. It is again argued that when the charge regarding second marriage has not been framed by the trial court, the motive of the offence demolishes. Hence, prayer to release the applicant on bail is made.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.
Admittedly, the present applicant is the husband of the deceased. As per the FIR there was allegation that the deceased and the applicant married 08 years back and one year back the present applicant brought a lady and started keeping her as his second wife. Since then, the applicant and alleged second wife of the applicant were harassing the deceased mentally and physically by hurling abuses and by giving her warning to go back to her parental house and otherwise. Her fooding was also hampered. In continuation of above harassment the deceased was put to death by the applicant and his alleged second wife and was hanged to make it a case of suicide. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 494, 504, 506, 120B, 306 IPC.
From the version of the FIR it is clear that the applicant never solemnised second marriage rather he kept a lady and started treating her as his second wife. This was the reason of committal of the alleged suicide by the deceased.
So far as not framing of charge under Section 494 IPC is concerned, there is clear finding of the trial court in the order dated 16.02.2023 that for the offence under Section 494 IPC a complaint can be filed only by the victim. Section 494 IPC speaks about marriage during life time of husband and wife, while in the first information report there is no allegation of solemnizing second marriage by the applicant, rather there is allegation that the applicant brought lady and gave her status of second wife. Thus, the offence under Section 494 IPC cannot be said to be made out on the basis of the version of the first information report itself. Otherwise also the trial court gave the finding that only husband or wife can file a complaint under Section 494 IPC. As after the death of the wife (deceased), this FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased, thus, there was no occasion to file a complaint under Section 494 IPC by the lady, who had already died.
In the opinion of the court, not framing of charge under Section 494 IPC does not absolve the applicant of the allegation that he brought a lady, kept her as his wife and the presence of this lady resulted into fights between deceased and the applicant. Consequently, the deceased is said to have committed suicide. The ground taken in the second bail application does not inspire confidence Thus, after perusing the record in the light of submission advanced at the bar, taking overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation and the period of detention already undergone without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The bail application is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing and decide the case being Case Crime No. 165 of 2021 under Sections 147, 494, 498A, 504, 506 and 306 I.P.C. read with 120B IPC, Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of producing a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023 gp