Allahabad High Court
Hari Shankar vs State Of U.P. on 5 September, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144909 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22849 of 2024 Applicant :- Hari Shankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I 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 18.10.2021 and 10.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29800 of 2021 (Hari Shankar vs. State of U.P.) and 20432 of 2022 (Hari Shankar vs. State of U.P.).
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Hari Shankar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Sessions Trial No. 363 of 2021 (State Vs. Hari Shankar) arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2021, under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as of now four prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that trial will still take time for its conclusion. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 10.04.2021. It is submitted that the applicant be thus released on bail looking to the period of detention and the delay in trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first and second bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that even the argument regarding delay in trial was pressed and argued in second bail application which was considered after which the said bail application was rejected. It is submitted that there is no new and fresh ground in the present third bail application.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present bail application is third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits by this Court. The order rejecting the second bail application which was filed on the ground of delay in trial and was rejected on 10.07.2023 reads as under:-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Hari Shankar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 103 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
4. The first bail application being Criminal Misc. Misc. Bail Application No. 29800 of 2021 (Harishankar vs. State of U.P.) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted the sole ground before the Court that the trial in the matter has started in which two witnesses being P.W.-1 Kanta Devi who is the first informant and P.W.-2 Deewan Singh the chacha of the deceased Manju have been examined but the trial is pending since long despite the applicant being in jail since 10.4.2021, copies of the statements of the said witnesses have been placed before the Court which are annexure nos. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 20.3.2023. It is argued that as such trial is yet to conclude and since the applicant is in jail for more than two years he may be released on bail.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a detailed order passed by this Court. It is argued that there is no fresh and new ground argued before the Court and as such the present bail application be dismissed.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a detailed order passed by this Court. The same is extracted herein below:-
"Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel 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-Harishankar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.103 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
The prosecution case as per FIR lodged on 09.04.2021 by Smt. Kanta Devi, the mother of the deceased Smt. Manju Devi is that the marriage of her daughter Smt. Manju Devi was solemnized with Harishankar, the applicant on 28.02.2017 in which gifts and dowry was given. After marriage the applicant and his elder brother Ravi were not satisfied with the dowry and started demanding extra dowry. A motorcycle and a buffalo was their demand and due to the same, they used to torture her daughter. They were consoled many times but they did not agree to it. On 09.04.2021, she received an information that her daughter has died by hanging herself after which she went there and found dead-body of her daughter lying on the floor.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but has been falsely implicated in the present case. The deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem report wherein the doctor has found a single ligature mark on the body of the deceased and opined the cause of death asphyxia as a result of hanging. There is no other bodily injury found on the body of the deceased. It is further argued that information was given to the police after which the tehsildaar reached the place of occurrence and broke open the door of the room in which the dead-body was found to be hanging from the roof, as such the suicide cannot be ruled out. The sister of the deceased is also married in the same house and she has in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that as the deceased was unable to conceive a child, she was not in a fit mental condition and used to get angry and was suspicious about her husband and had committed suicide, as such implication of the applicant is false. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and is in jail since 10.04.2021.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 28.02.2017 and she died on 09.04.2021 in her matrimonial house and the death is unnatural. The room in which the deceased committed suicide also has a window which is marked in the site-plan and as such it cannot be said that there was no other means to enter in the room and as such the door being bolted looses its significance. The applicant is involved in the present case.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The reason for committing suicide has no basis and does not have any credible evidence.
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."
8. The only ground of delay in trial is being pressed and argued. The records show that the trial is under progress and as such the release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect therein. The two witnesses examined have supported the prosecution case.
9. In view of the same I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
10. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected."
7. As of now in the trial four prosecution witnesses have been examined. The trial court has thus proceeded with the trial and it cannot be said that the trial is not proceeding.
8. The present third bail application is rejected as there is no new & fresh ground.
9. However the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same at the earliest subject to any legal impediment.
10. The applicant shall file this order before the trial court within two weeks.
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.9.2024 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)