Allahabad High Court
Tirath Lal vs State Of U.P. on 3 October, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188866 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29383 of 2023 Applicant :- Tirath Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Veerendra Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the Court.
3. These applications for bail has been filed by applicant-Tirath Lal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ladadham, District- Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.
4. It transpires from record that Marriage of applicant was solemnized with Gyanmati in the year 2018. However, just after expiry of a period of two years from the date of marriage of applicant an unfortunate incident occurred on 28.08.2020 in which wife of applicant committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.
5. It is the case of the applicant that immediately after the occurrence, the victim rushed to the hospital by the applicant himself. Ultimately, the victim succumbed to the poisonous substance consumed by her in the Hospital. Information regarding death of deceased at the police station concerned was not given by applicant or any of his family members but by ward boy Ramendra. On the said information, inquest (Panchnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 28.08.2020. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased was characterised as suicidal. Thereafter, post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased, no external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. As such, cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained. As a result, viscera of the deceased was preserved. Ultimately, Chemical Analyst submitted viscera report dated 19.02.2021 wherein organo cloro-insecticide was found in the body parts of the deceased sent for chemical examination.
6. After proceedings of inquest and post-mortem had been undertaken, an F.I.R. dated 19.08.2020 came to be lodged by Rakesh Kumar (brother of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 244 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ladadham, District- Kaushambi. In the aforesaid F.I.R. two persons namely Tirath Lal (husband) and Bablu (Devar) of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.
7. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused have caused death of the sister of first informant on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
8. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, the Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, he examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have substantially supported the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused is fully established in the crime in question. He accordingly submitted the charge-sheet dated 10.12.2021 whereby named accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 498A, 323, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act .
9. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused inasmuch as charge sheet has been submitted against both the named accused on 10.12.2021 yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. With reference to the material on record, he submits that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of terminating her life by consuming some poisonous substance herself. The same is explicit from the viscera report of the deceased. Bonafide of applicant is also explicit from the fact that no internal or external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased by the autopsy surgeon. Furthermore, immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim was rushed to the Hospital by the applicant. The death of the victim occurred in the hospital. There is no reason to doubt that applicant is guilty. Applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. No abetment, instigation or conspiracy can be inferred against applicant from the record either. Allegations with regard to demand of additional dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon deceased on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are vague and bald allegation as they are devoid of material particulars. As such, the same are liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6SCC 599. Learned counsel for applicant further contends that considering the nature of death of deceased, applicant is not liable to be awarded the maximum sentence for an offence under Section 304B I.P.C.
10. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch he has no criminal history to hie credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 28.09.2021. As such, he has under-gone more than two years of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Marriage of deceased was solemnised with applicant on 18.02.2018 and just after expiry of a period of two years and six months from the date of her marriage, the deceased committed suicide. As such, death of the deceased is in unnatural circumstance. The deceased has committed suicide within seven years of marriage and at her matrimonial home. Resultantly, the death of the deceased is a dowry death. Therefore, burden is upon the applicant to explain not only the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Section 106 and Section 113B of Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden upto this stage. He therefore submits that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel for first informant upon consideration of material on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that prima-facie the death of the deceased is a suicidal death as is established from the viscera report dated 19.02.2021, the Autopsy Surgeon did not find any external or internal ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased, bonafide of the applicant is also explicit from the fact that immediately after the occurrence, the victim was rushed to the hospital by the applicant, the allegation made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon deceased on account of non-fulfilment of additional demand of dowry are vague and bald allegation as the same are devoid of material particulars, as such, the same are liable to be ignored at this stage, the judgement of the Supreme Court in K. Kausar @ Sonam and others(supra), the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stand crystallised, yet inspite of above the learned AG.A. and the learned counsel for first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, considering the nature of death of the deceased, the applicant is not liable to be awarded the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C., the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
13. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Tirath Lal involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of. trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
15. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicants and send him to prison.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023 YK