Allahabad High Court
Rohit Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 11 September, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22486 of 2019 Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Perused the material on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Rohit Kumar with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 242 of 2016, Sessions Trial No. 781 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.
4. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Menka in the month of March, 2014. Just after expiry of a period of only two years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11th June, 2016, in which the wife of the applicant died. A first information report dated 11th June, 2016 was lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Rajendra Prasad, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 242 of 2016, Sessions Trial No. 781 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R., as many as five persons, namely, Rohit Kumar- husband (applicant herein), Brahma Devi -mother-in-law, Meenakshi- sister-in-law and Ram Gopal -father-in-law of the deceased and the other co-accused -Dharmdas were nominated as the named accused.
5. In the first information report, it has been alleged that the marriage of the daughter of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant according to Hindu Rites and Rituals in the month of March, 2014 and at the time of marriage, Rs. 10 lacs invested as a dowry, but the in-laws of the victim were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they started harassing and torturing her for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and when the same was not fulfilled, the alleged incident took place on 11th June, 2016 by killing her.
6. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 12th June, 2016 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the first informant. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was performed on 12th June, 2016. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to throttling. The Doctor has further found following injuries on the body of the deceased:
"1. Abrasion mark 4.0 X 5.0 cm on the right side of knee below from right ear, gap oblique in dissection.
2. Contusion mark 6.0 X 4.0 cm out on left side 6 cm below left ear below."
7. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is a young man and is in jail since 26th June, 2016. On date the applicant has spent nearly three years and three month of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased was a short-tempered lady. From the first day of the marriage, the deceased was not pleased with her marriage with the applicant and repeatedly stated before the applicant that the aforesaid marriage was solemnized against her will but under the pressure of her parents, she married with the applicant. At the time of the incident, no members of the family was at the residence. Inviting the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report of the deceased, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that no other ante-mortem external injury was found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark, which speaks of the bona fide of the present applicant. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the first information report regarding the demand of dowry. On the basis of the submission, as noted above, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the death of the deceased is suicidal and not on account of deliberate act of the present applicant. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. No other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the present application for bail by contending that the applicant is not only a named accused but is also a charge-sheeted accused. Learned counsel for the State further submits that offence complained of against the applicant is under Section 304-B I.P.C., therefore, the presumption is available to the prosecution as the death of the deceased was nearly within two years of her marriage. Consequently, the applicant is under heavy burden to explain as to in what circumstances, the incident in question has occurred. However, upto this stage, according to the learned A.G.A., the applicant has completely failed to discharge the said burden. The burden to proof regarding the innocence of the applicant, which is required under Sections 106 and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, remains undischarged, as the applicant has not been able to explain as to how occurrence has taken place, even when the occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant. It is further submitted that specific allegations of additional demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been made in the first information report as well as in the statement of the first informant. Therefore, the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for non-fulfillment of the alleged demand of dowry has been attributed to all the accused including the present applicant, who is direct beneficiary of the said demand of dowry. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the informant that whatever be the circumstances, it was an unnatural death, but even if it is a case of suicide, then too it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304-B I.P.C. is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable doubt. Dealing with the complicity of applicant-accused and in light of the material on record, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant vehemently submit that no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. It has further been submitted by the learned A.G.A. that as on date one prosecution witness has been examined namely, P.W. 1 i.e. informant of the case. As such, it is urged that instead of considering the bail application of the applicant the interest of justice shall better be served in case the trial is directed to be expedited by this Court.
9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant, thus the bail applicant is stands rejected at this stage.
10. However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same as expeditious, as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
11.Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
12. It is clarified that any observations, if any, made by this Court are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Priya