Allahabad High Court
Monu vs State Of U.P. on 10 January, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5357 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29133 of 2024 Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 25.05.2021 and 01.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20403 of 2021 (Monu vs. State of U.P.) and 16753 of 2022 (Monu vs. State of U.P.).
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Monu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 306 of 2020 (S.T. No. 907 of 2020), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station New Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is in jail since 19.06.2020 and the trial in the matter has yet not concluded as till date only 06 witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that P.W.-5 Satta @ Satvir and P.W.-6 Jamuna have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that looking to the said factum and also that trial in the matter has yet not concluded and there is delay in trial, the applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2021. The said order reads as under:-
"Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Brahma Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Monu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 306 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station New Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that first information report is based on false and incorrect facts and the accused persons named therein have been falsely implicated. It is argued that the same has been registered against 09 persons whereas the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant who is the husband and Smt. Chandra who is the mother-in-law of the deceased whereas the other 07 accused persons have been exonerated which goes to show that there is a false implication of all the accused persons. It is further argued that the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide which would be suggestive of the fact that the gate of the house was locked from inside which was broken and then persons entered in the house and found the deceased in a dead condition. It is argued that the postmortem report does not show any other bodily injury present on the body of the deceased but the viscera has been preserved. The viscera report is still awaited. It is argued while placing paragraph 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit in support of bail application that at the time of incident the applicant was not present in the house and was out at his work place to cut out brick along with his other family members at brick kiln wherein the deceased Smt. Soni was all alone in the house. It is argued that there was a dispute of the applicant with his neighbour Nitin who is the jeeja of the deceased Smt. Soni and due to the said aggression the deceased herself took medicine from a medical store and consumed it as a result of which she died. It is argued that the entire prosecution story is false and incorrect. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 and is in jail since 19.06.2020.
Per contra learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that marriage of the deceased with the applicant was solemnized on 24.02.2016 and she died after four years of marriage and the death is unnatural in her matrimonial house. It is further argued that the story as set up by the applicant that the deceased had taken some medicine from the medical store and consumed it as a result of which she died is false and incorrect as a glass was recovered from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer in which some liquid was found in it which was sent for analysis and the same was found to be Aluminium Phosphide. It is argued that there is a consistent case of demand of dowry by the applicant and other family members. It is argued that prayer for bail be rejected.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of his wife Smt. Soni took place within four years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. The presence of Aluminium Phosphide in a glass recovered from the place of occurrence goes to show that poison has been used for committing dowry death. The explanation given by the applicant in paragraph 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit regarding the reason for the deceased committing suicide is not convincing at all.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is 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."
7. The second bail of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2023. The said order reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Zaid Arshad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This is second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20403 of 2021 (Monu vs. State of U.P.).
This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Monu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Session Trial No. 907 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 306 of 2020, under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Soni. It is argued that trial in the present case has started in which Rajpal the first informant has been examined as P.W.-1. Learned counsel has placed the statement of Rajpal, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit and has tried to show some contradiction in the same and argue that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that looking to the same false implication of the applicant is apparent. The applicant is in jail since 19.06.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in so far as P.W.-1 Rajpal is concerned, he has supported the prosecution case. It is argued that the present bail is a second bail application of the applicant. The first bail of the applicant was decided on merits by a detailed order dated 25.05.2021 passed by this Court. It is argued that in the charge-sheet, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit there are other prosecution witnesses of fact which remain to be examined and as such at this stage merely looking to the statement of P.W.-1 Rajpal and releasing the applicant on bail will not be in the fitness of things.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. The sole ground as argued is that there is some contradictions in the statement of P.W.-1 Rajpal who is the first informant. The charge-sheet shows that there are other witnesses of fact who are yet to be examined.
In these circumstances of the case at this stage merely considering only one statement would not be in the fitness of things, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."
8. The trial in the present matter is going in which 06 witnesses have been examined. It cannot be said that trial is not progressing. The appreciation of the evidence and the statement of witnesses has to be done by the trial court at the appropriate stage. No ground for bail is made out.
9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.1.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)