Mohan Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 September, 2023

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Mohan Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 September, 2023

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Mohan Vishwakarma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No.297 of 2017, Case Crime No.641 of 2017, under Sections 304, 326A IPC, registered at Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur.

4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 18.7.2018 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6089 of 2018.The said order is extracted here-in-below:-

"1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Advocate assisted by Sri Udai Shanker Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been preferred by Mohan Vishwakarma seeking bail in Case Crime No. 641 of 2017, under sections 326-A and 304 IPC, P.S. Chandawk, District Jaunpur.

3. Contention raised at the Bar is that prompt FIR was registered on 20.05.2017 by Meera Devi Vishwakarma with the prosecution story that on the fateful day i.e., 20.05.2017 at about 13 hours, Khushbu, daughter of the informant, informant herself along with her brother Ujagir and one Arvind Singh went to her counsel at Tehsil Kerakat for getting the settlement papers of her divorce from her husband Mohan Vishwakarma (the present applicant) drafted.

4. It is culled out from the FIR that the applicant is her near relation, who used to extend threats to her daughter Khushbu that he would not permit her (khushbu) to marry with any other person after her divorce but with heavy heart he agreed to give her divorce. While the divorce settlement papers were being drafted by the counsel, all of a sudden the applicant threw acid on the face of her daughter, Khushbu and fled away from the site, saying that he would not permit Khushbu to marry with any other person. Thereafter the victim was immediately carried to the Government Hospital, from where she was referred to the BHU Hospital in a precarious condition and at last she succumbed to her injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the recovery of blue/ white thermos from the possession of the applicant from which effluvium of acid was breaking up. He has wily tried to draw a discrepancy viz-a-viz of the vessel mentioned in the FIR arguing that in the FIR it is a blue mug whereas the recovery shown is of a thermos. Besides this, he has also tried to assail the veracity of the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., of the victim by arguing that the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., do not contain the name of the person certifying her mental condition. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant is suffering incarceration in jail since 21.05.2017, having no criminal antecedents, therefore, he is liable to be bailed out.

6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail and has drawn my attention to the dying declaration recorded by Sri Manoj Kumar Sagar, III-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, who certified that the dying declaration was recorded on 01.06.2017, wherein the injured victim in a no uncertain form has attributed the role of acid assault upon her to the present applicant.

7. This Court is not at all impressed by the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant to the extent that it hardly makes any difference as to whether it was a mug or a thermos. The term, occasionally used by the informant and the police in their respective documents. So far as mentioning of the name of the doctor certifying the mental state of the victim is concerned, all these aspects are to be adjudicated at the time of the trial.

8. The deceased was reeling under an immense mental pressure and under the pressure, the applicant got agreed to divorce by mutual consent but for this he has taken the cost of her life by throwing acid upon her. The incident happened in the broad day light in a dare devil manner. The post mortem examination report of the deceased reveals cause of death is due to septicaemia, due to infection and her ante mortem examination report reveals that the deceased suffered demo-epidermal infected burn injury face, neck, chest, upper blower touching to umbilicus, upper limbs, thighs, left buttock and slough present upon her.

9. The legislature on its own wisdom under section 326-A IPC on 03.10.3013 has provided imprisonment for life and fine and the instant case is a glaring example of one of the most serious rather heinous offence against a lady.

10. Evaluating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no good ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the applicant for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, turned down.

11. However, the trial court is expected expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law , preferably within a year, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment and also if, the applicant renders all cooperation in early conclusion of trial.

12. Office is directed to transmit this order to the concerned court within a fortnight."

5. As per office report dated 21.9.2023, a report dated 19.9.2023 of the trial court has been received which is on record. This Court has perused the same. The said report states that the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 18.9.2023 and 20.9.2023 was the date fixed for defence witness. The trial court has stated that it is making all efforts to conclude the trial at the earliest. This Court has perused the said report dated 19.9.2023 of the trial court and the report of the said date of the District Judge, Jaunpur also.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the bail on merits and appropriate directions be issued for conclusion of the trial within a specific period of time.

7. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said submission.

8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that since the bail is not being pressed on the merits and limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the applicant directing the trial court to decide the trial within a specific period of time since the matter is nearing conclusion as per the report of the trial court and of the concerned District and Sessions Judge, it is provided that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others : (2002) 1 SCC 655, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and another Vs. Union of India : (2017) 5 SCC 702, Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P: Criminal Appeal No.339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022) and the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No:- 8905 /2022: Mukesh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another), subject to any legal impediment.

9. The bail application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 22.9.2023 Gaurav Kuls

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court