Allahabad High Court
Sonu vs State Of U.P. on 24 February, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6607 of 2023 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2019, U/S 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jaithra, District Etah, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu rites on 20.4.2015 and the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and a car and are stated to have assaulted her on 13.7.2019 of which an FIR was lodged at P.S. Aliganj, District Etah, at Case Crime No. 211 of 2019 under Sections 452, 323, 504 IPC, but the matter was settled between the parties in a Panchayat, which was held at the house of Ex-Minister Awadh Pal Singh Yadav, Etah. The daughter of the informant was sent with the applicant and his family members on 25.7.2019. The daughter of the informant is stated to have called the informant on 31.7.2019 in the morning and had stated that her in-laws wanted to put her to death. Later on, at about 11.00 am, the informant is stated to have got an information that the deceased has been admitted to Apex Hospital, Agra, after being beaten by the in-laws, in serious condition and they had run away. The informant is stated to have reached there and finding the condition of his daughter serious, had taken her to government hospital, Saifai. The deceased is stated to have succumbed to her injuries on 13.8.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about 17 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even it is delayed by four days after the death of the deceased person. Learned counsel has next stated that as far as the FIR No. 211 of 2019 is concerned, the victim and her father had already given their affidavits to the authorities, whereby they had stated that the applicant and other co-accused persons have been falsely nominated. It is next stated that it was the applicant, who had admitted the deceased at Apex Hospital, Agra, which stands supported by the medical report of the deceased filed with supplementary affidavit as SA-1. Learned counsel has argued that the cause of death is septicemia as a result of partial hanging. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the death summary of the deceased person, which categorically indicates that the victim was admitted at the hospital with alleged history of hanging on 31.7.2019 at 8.00 am and the patient was received intubated with ET tube in situ, and she had later on undergone cardiopulmonary arrest. Despite applying CPR and other frantic efforts being taken up, she could not be revived and declared dead on 13.8.2019 at 11.20 pm. Learned counsel has also stated that the deceased was unconscious during her complete investigation, as such, no dying declaration could be recorded. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel has also stated that all expenses of treatment of the deceased were undertaken by the applicant as is evident from Annexure-12 filed with the bail application, whereby an amount of Rs. 23 thousand has been paid by the applicant. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant has no criminal history except the said FIR No. 211 of 2019 lodged by the daughter of the informant (deceased) herself.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.9.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per the injury report recorded at the Apex Hospital, GCS of the deceased was E2V1M3 which indicates a total of six only, thereby it can be observed that the victim could not be conscious of her surroundings. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the cause of death is septicemia as a result of ante-mortem partial hanging. Learned A.G.A. has stated that it is a settled law that if a patient dies of toxemia and septicemia as a result of injuries sustained, then the offence under Section 302 IPC is made out. Herein, although the offence is under Section 304-B IPC, which lies on a lower pedestal, the offence against the applicant is made out. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the deceased had sustained injuries to which she had succumbed later on within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the onus lies on him to explain as to the reason why she sustained injuries. The defense of the applicant that it was the deceased who had tried to commit suicide, cannot be believed. Learned A.G.A. has next stated that had it been so, the applicant himself had ample opportunity to lodge an FIR or to report it to the authorities, which is absent. Learned A.G.A. has next stated that the delay in lodging the FIR is but natural as the informant was busy in the treatment of his daughter and also in her last rites. Learned A.G.A. has stated that the applicant has not produced any record to suggest as to the status of the trial.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, the factum of deceased receiving injuries within the precincts of the house of the applicant, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the court below may proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Shalini