Allahabad High Court
Paramveer vs State Of U.P. on 2 July, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107060 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25869 of 2022 Applicant :- Paramveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Paramveer, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2020, under Sections 147, 302, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj.
4. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 40590 of 2021 (Pramveer Vs. State of U.P.).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the chemical analyst has found aluminium phosphide in the viscera of the deceased it is impossible for anyone to forcefully administer it to any other person, the same can only be consumed by the said person during the course of committing suicide. It is submitted that as such the story of forceful administration of aluminium phosphide on the deceased is totally baseless. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the statement of PW-1 Rajesh Kumar has been recorded and as such there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence or witnesses. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2021.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court by a detailed order. It is submitted that in so far as the administration of aluminium phosphide is concerned, the injury as found by the doctor conducting the postmortem examination clinches the said issue inasmuch as the doctor has found contusion on the right cheek of the deceased which was in an area of 12cm x 10cm in which he has specifically noted that the contusions are six in number which would go to show that there were multiple injuries on the cheek of the deceased and the same can very well be caused during the time of forceful administration of poison. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is under progress in which one witness has fully supported the prosecution story as such the release of the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect on the trial. There is no fresh and new ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant, the present bail application be rejected.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021, the same reads as under:
"Heard Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Pramveer, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2020, under Sections 147, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj.
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 the marriage of the deceased Smt. Geeta was solemnized in the year 2011 and the couple were leading a happy married life as is evident from the fact that 02 children were born from the wedlock. It is argued that there is no motive whatsoever stated in the first information report about the applicant committing the said offence. It is further argued while placing paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of bail application that the deceased was a lady of short-temper and she herself committed suicide. Further paragraph 14 has been placed before the Court and it is argued that on the day of incident, the applicant who is a halwai was making sweets in the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Janki Prasad and when he received information about the incident through telephone he went to his house and found his wife to be dead who had taken a wrong medicine for some ailment in her body. It is argued that although in the postmortem examination report there was 01 injury found on the body of the deceased which was the contusion on the right cheek having six contusions in it but the same appears to have been received by the deceased due to fall on a cot. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that co-accused Somveer; Subhash; Hari Singh and Urmila Devi, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.05.2021 and 04.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20762 of 2021, 20779 of 2021 and 27363 of 2021, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 12 and is in jail since 28.01.2021.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the viscera report of the deceased was preserved in which Aluminium Phosphide has been discovered by the chemical analyst. It is argued that there was an attempt to cremate the body as is evident from the fact itself that the dead body when reached the doctor for postmortem examination was found to be covered with cannabis leaves all over. It is argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The alibi as is being pleaded is false. It is further argued that the case of the co-accused is distinguishable from that of the applicant as they are the in-laws of the deceased whereas the applicant is her husband.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has received contusions on her cheek. The viscera report states of Aluminium Phosphide poison in it. There appears to be an attempt of cremation of the dead body in a clandestine manner as is evident from the postmortem examination report where the doctor states that the entire body was found to be covered with cannabis plants. Co-accused who have have been granted bail are the in-laws of the deceased but the applicant is the husband. The alibi as is being pleaded needs to be proved in trial.
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 at this stage."
8. The ground as pleaded regarding the poison being consumed by the deceased does not in any manner impress the Court. The contusions which are noted to be six in number on the right cheek of the deceased would go to show that there has been injury which may be while administering her poison. No fresh and new ground is argued. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
10. The second bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)