Allahabad High Court
Dinesh vs State Of U.P. on 2 December, 2020
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42904 of 2020 Applicant :- Dinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Dinesh seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 150 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is not named in the first information report. As per the first information report, the deceased Kumari Madhuri, aged about 17 years, daughter of the first informant was having some relationship with one Vikas @ Hanuman and as such she left her house on her own along with some jewellery and cash of rupees one lakh on 23.03.2020 at about midnight. The same was witnessed by one Attar Singh who asked her as to where she was going to which she stated that she is going to washroom and on having some suspicion, Attar Singh informed the first informant about it and the first informant followed his daughter and reached a grove wherein some fire was burning. The grove belongs to Vikas @ Hanuman. It is argued that the first information report of the incident was registered under section 363 IPC. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered near the field of one Sunil on 27.03.2020 and its post-mortem was done on 28.03.2020, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the brother-in-law of the deceased and has no concern with them and he lives separately. It is argued that there is no evidence at all against the applicant to connect him in the present case except for the suspicion and confession of co-accused. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material on the pointing out or possession of the applicant. It is further argued that co-accused Rekha Devi has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.09.2020 passed in Crl.Misc. Bail Application No. 26579 of 2020 (Rekha Devi vs. State of U.P.). Co-accused Radha Devi has also been granted bail vide order dated 07.10.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.28695 of 2020 (Radha Devi vs. State of U.P.). The said orders are annexed as Annexure no.13 to the affidavit. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para 30 and is in jail since 03.04.2020.
Per contra, learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the present case is a case of honor killing. Learned brief holder has placed before the Court the post-mortem report of the deceased which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit and has proceeded to argue that the dead body of the deceased was found in a decomposed condition. The time since death was opined by the doctor to be about four days and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation. He has further placed the injuries as noted in the post-mortem report which are as follows:
"1. Ligature mark size 33x2 cm all around the neck. Ligature mark is at distance from right ear is about 3 cm, left ear 2 cm and from the chin about 7 cm.
2. Whole genital region is putrified more then other region indicate that whole genital region is destroyed by any corrosive material."
It is argued by the learned brief holder for the State that even apart from the continuous ligature mark on the neck which below it had the hyoid bone fractured, the injury no.2 is the putrification of the whole genital region which was destroyed by any corrosive material and, as such, it is clear that even some corrosive material was poured on the genitals of the deceased and she was strangulated. It is argued that looking to the fact and nature of the case, the prayer for bail be rejected.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The first information report was initially registered under section 363 IPC even in which the first informant states to have followed his daughter who is the deceased when she was leaving the house. As to what happened after that has not been disclosed in the first information report. The present case is a case of honour killing. A minor girl aged about 17 years was, apart from being strangulated, also injured by pouring some corrosive material on her genitals, the situation, as such is barbaric.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant Dinesh.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
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.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 2.12.2020 Madhurima