Allahabad High Court
Jay Hind vs State Of U.P. on 11 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176603 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54230 of 2023 Applicant :- Jay Hind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pt. S.P. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Shri Pt. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Shri Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.70 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506, 120, 201, 118 IPC & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sakarar, District Jhansi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.04.2022 against applicant and his family members through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 21.10.2021 and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant on 29.05.2019 and after marriage, applicant and his family members tortured her for demand of a motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- and on 17.08.2021 applicant side informed the informant that his daughter had gone somewhere. It is further mentioned in the FIR that either they have committed her murder or they sold her.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is husband of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry and torture, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith his family members.
5. He further submits that actually deceased i.e. wife of the applicant had gone somewhere from her matrimonial home on 17.08.2021 and immediately thereafter information has been given to the informant, which is evident even from the FIR of the present case and on 18.08.2021 applicant himself lodged an FIR in this regard under Section 365 I.P.C., which has been annexed at page 45 of the paper book.
6. He further submits that after registration of the FIR lodged by the applicant investigation was started and during investigation on 03.01.2022 one skeleton was found.
7. He further submits that on 31.03.2023 when D.N.A. report was received then it was found that the skeleton was of the wife of the applicant i.e. daughter of the informant.
8. He further submits that in the meantime, on 21.10.2021 informant moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of false allegation and thereafter FIR of the present case was registered on 25.04.2022 and therefore, it appears that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case.
9. He further submits that if wife of the applicant gone somewhere from her matrimonial home and thereafter she was murdered then applicant cannot be held liable specially considering the fact that immediately after her missing, he himself not only lodged an FIR but also informed the informant and informant was mum for two months and after two months he moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and this fact clearly indicates innocence of the applicant and it appears that FIR of the present case was lodged on the basis of false allegation.
10. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.09.2023 i.e. for last more than a year.
11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and it appears that applicant after committing the murder of his wife lodged the FIR but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after eight months through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also moved after two months.
12. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.09.2023 i.e. for last more than a year.
13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
14. However, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within three years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but as per the applicant deceased i.e. his wife on 17.08.2021 missed from her matrimonial home and in this regard he also lodged an FIR on 18.08.2021, which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application and during investigation of the case, one skeleton was recovered, which subsequently found to be of his wife i.e. daughter of the informant. Record also suggests, applicant side immediately informed the informant about missing of the deceased.
15. Record further suggests that in the meantime on 21.10.2021 informant moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged in the month of April, 2022 and therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case. Further, as applicant not only lodged an FIR with regard to missing of his wife but also informed the informant, therefore, it shows his bona-fide.
16. Further, from post-mortem report, it reflects that the skeleton was in highly decomposed position, therefore, the cause of death of could not be ascertained and therefore, it reflects that till date there is no evidence, which can suggest that deceased died under abnormal circumstances for the purpose of Section 304-B I.P.C.
17. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.09.2023 i.e. for last more than a year.
18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
20. Let the applicant- Jay Hind be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
22. 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 :- 11.11.2024 Zafar