Allahabad High Court
Vijay Maddhesiya vs State Of U.P. on 18 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180359 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36814 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Maddhesiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Shri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.231 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 IPC & Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 11.05.2024 against applicant and his family members and according to the FIR, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant on 28.05.2019 and after marriage, applicant and his family members tortured her for additional demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and thereafter they turned her out from her matrimonial home and on 28.08.2023, she lodged an FIR against them under the provisions of D.P. Act and under Section 498-A I.P.C., in which after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. It is further mentioned in the FIR that some other matrimonial cases were also pending between husband and wife and when applicant and his family members did not take the sister of the informant then she herself started living in her matrimonial home where she was harassed by the applicant and his family members and on 09.05.2024 when informant arrived at her matrimonial home then he found that main channel gate of the house was locked and thereafter he informed the police and after arrival of the police when door was opened then it was found that his sister was lying dead on the floor.
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 other family members.
5. He further submits that actually deceased i.e. wife of the applicant due to her mental illness was unable to perform her matrimonial duties and she also very often used to live in her paternal home therefore, on 23.12.2022 applicant filed a divorce petition and thereafter as counter blast on 28.08.2023, she lodged FIR under the provisions of Sections 3/4 D.P. Act and under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the applicant and his family members and on 17.01.2024, she filed a complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
6. He further submits that when deceased again started living in her matrimonial home then thereafter applicant left his house and started living in the house of his relatives and this fact is even evident from the statement of the mother of the deceased, therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of incident applicant was with the deceased in the home.
7. He further submits that however, post-mortem report suggests that deceased died due to strangulation but her hyoid bone was found intact and during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the autopsy surgeon then he stated that it might be a case of partial hanging and therefore, at this stage, precisely, it cannot be said that it is a case of strangulation.
8. He further submits that actually in the absence of applicant and his family members, deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and when police arrived at spot then after breaking the door, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered and this fact is evident from parcha of the case diary, which has been annexed at page 90 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.
9. He further submits that if due to the matrimonial dispute arose between husband and wife, wife either committed suicide or somebody committed her murder in her matrimonial home in the absence of her husband then husband and his family members cannot be held liable.
10. He further submits that apart from the present case and the cases arose due to the matrimonial dispute, applicant is having no other criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.06.2024.
11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submit that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within five years of her marriage due to strangulation and there is also not only allegation of demand of dowry but also before her death deceased lodged FIR under the provisions of Sections 3/4 D.P. Act and under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the applicant and his family members and this fact suggests that applicant used to torture the deceased for want of dowry.
12. They further submit that post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that she sustained as many as eight injuries and she died due to strangulation and however, during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the autopsy surgeon under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then he stated that it might be a case of partial hanging but this fact can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial.
13. They further submit that from parcha of case diary, however, it reflects that after breaking the door, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered but considering the autopsy report of the deceased, it cannot be said that it is a case of suicidal death rather it appears to be a case of homicidal death. They further submit, all the other facts can only be properly ascertained by the trial court during trial therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should not be released on bail.
14. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
15. Applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within five years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is also allegation of demand of dowry and torture.
16. Record further suggests that before her death some matrimonial dispute was pending between the applicant and the deceased and she also lodged FIR under the provisions of Sections 3/4 D.P. Act and under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the applicant and his family members, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that deceased was not subjected to cruelty for want of dowry.
17. Further, post-mortem report of the deceased suggests that she sustained as many as eight injuries and according to the autopsy surgeon, she died due to strangulation. Therefore, post-mortem report suggests that it is a case of homicidal death and learned counsel for the applicant tried to demonstrate that applicant started residing separately from the deceased when she started living in his home but from the statements of the witnesses including the statement of the mother of the deceased, it also reflects that applicant however started living near his house but very often, he visited his own home where deceased lived and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that at the time of incident applicant was not present at his house when deceased died specially considering the fact that in the entire bail application, applicant has not disclosed the fact that on the date of incident, where he was present.
18. Further, from the record, it also however reflects that after breaking the door, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered and doctor also in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that however, it was a case of strangulation but it might be a case of partial hanging but all these facts can only be properly appreciated by the trial court during trial. As according to the autopsy report, deceased died due to strangulation and she also sustained as many as eight injuries, therefore, prima-facie, it appears to be a case of homicidal death and applicant being husband failed to demonstrate that he was not present in the house.
19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is filed on behalf of the applicant - Vijay Maddhesiya is rejected.
21. 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 :- 18.11.2024 Zafar