High Court

(C.M. Application No.1 of 2024- First Bail Application of Smt. Rashipati) (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024- First Bail Application of Alakh Nath Gupta) (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024- First Bail Application of Sanjay Kumar Gupta)

1. Heard Sri Kailash Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. At the very outset, Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, has confined his prayer for bail only on behalf of applicants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta. The bail application moved on behalf of the husband of the deceased, namely, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, may be rejected.

3. Accordingly, C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 moved on behalf of the applicant- Sanjay Kumar Gupta in Criminal Appeal No.3205 of 2024, the husband of the deceased, is rejected for want of prosecution.

4. This Court had passed an order on 02.01.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "Learned counsel for the appellant says that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest. However, from a perusal of the judgment and order dated 05.09.2024, impugned in this appeal, we find that the learned trial Court has referred to certain photographs that were taken of the deceased soon after she died and there is mention of a ligature mark on her neck and injuries on her shoulder also. PW-2 had clicked these photographs from his phone and PW-1 had also proved those photographs to be that of the deceased. No such photographs have been sent along with the photocopy of the record sent by the trial Court. Let the office summon photographs, if any, that were produced before the trial Court allegedly by PW-1 and PW-2 to prove their case of unnatural death. List this matter on 29.01.2025 within the top ten cases of the board."

5. The office has sent a report that the Trial Court Record was summoned but photographs were not available, although they were referred to by the Trial Court in its judgement of conviction.

6. In pursuance of the order dated 02.01.2025, the Trial Court has sent the original copies of photographs which were produced before the Trial Court, which show bruises/ injury marks on the body of the deceased and also ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.

7. The coloured photographs are directed to be again placed in a sealed cover and should be kept in safe keeping in the office of the Senior Registrar and shall be sent as and when the Court summons the same during the hearing of Appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants/ appellants- Smt. Rashipati, the mother-in-law of the deceased and Alakh Nath Gupta, father-in-law of the deceased, were living separately from their son Sanjay Kumar Gupta, who was living with his deceased wife in a separate house.

9. It has been stated that since the parents-in-law were living in a separate house, they had no inkling as to what was going on in the house of their son and daughter-in-law. They had indeed gone to attend the birthday party of their two years old grand-daughter in the house of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, but had returned in the late night. They had no idea regarding the death of the deceased.

10. It has been submitted that learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgement has blindly believed the deposition of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 in their examination-in-chief and has totally discarded their admissions made in the cross- examination.

11. Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta and has stated that initially P.W.-1 was called up by Alakh Nath Gupta and told that her son-in-law had hanged himself and died. Such phone call was made at 02:00 a.m. When the relatives of the deceased reached the house of their son-in-law, they found that their daughter had died and her body was lying outside the house. They were told that she died of a heart attack and the body was cremated soon thereafter without there being any inquest report or post-mortem conducted on the body or any information being given to the Police Station concerned regarding unnatural death of the daughter-in-law.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out paragraph-8 of the impugned judgement of conviction.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants has stated that if there is any grievance of the complainant or of the respondents regarding unnatural death of the deceased, the burden would lie upon the husband of the deceased, namely, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, who is the son of applicants/ appellants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta, as he was living in the separate house with the daughter-in-law.

14. We have gone through the relevant extract of the impugned judgement of conviction as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the coloured photographs of the deceased, which show a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, whereas the argument was made before the Trial Court was that the deceased had died of a heart attack.

15. We do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicants/appellants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta.

16. Bail Application No.1 of 2024 moved on behalf of Smt. Rashipati in Criminal Appeal No. 2999 of 2024 and Bail Application No.1 of 2024 moved on behalf of Alakh Nath Gupta in Criminal Appeal No.3050 of 2024, are rejected. Order on Appeal Office is directed to prepare the paper-book within a period of three months. List this case in the second week of July, 2025. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Rahul

(C.M. Application No.1 of 2024- First Bail Application of Smt. Rashipati) (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024- First Bail Application of Alakh Nath Gupta) (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024- First Bail Application of Sanjay Kumar Gupta)

1. Heard Sri Kailash Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. At the very outset, Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, has confined his prayer for bail only on behalf of applicants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta. The bail application moved on behalf of the husband of the deceased, namely, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, may be rejected.

3. Accordingly, C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 moved on behalf of the applicant- Sanjay Kumar Gupta in Criminal Appeal No.3205 of 2024, the husband of the deceased, is rejected for want of prosecution.

4. This Court had passed an order on 02.01.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "Learned counsel for the appellant says that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest. However, from a perusal of the judgment and order dated 05.09.2024, impugned in this appeal, we find that the learned trial Court has referred to certain photographs that were taken of the deceased soon after she died and there is mention of a ligature mark on her neck and injuries on her shoulder also. PW-2 had clicked these photographs from his phone and PW-1 had also proved those photographs to be that of the deceased. No such photographs have been sent along with the photocopy of the record sent by the trial Court. Let the office summon photographs, if any, that were produced before the trial Court allegedly by PW-1 and PW-2 to prove their case of unnatural death. List this matter on 29.01.2025 within the top ten cases of the board."

5. The office has sent a report that the Trial Court Record was summoned but photographs were not available, although they were referred to by the Trial Court in its judgement of conviction.

6. In pursuance of the order dated 02.01.2025, the Trial Court has sent the original copies of photographs which were produced before the Trial Court, which show bruises/ injury marks on the body of the deceased and also ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.

7. The coloured photographs are directed to be again placed in a sealed cover and should be kept in safe keeping in the office of the Senior Registrar and shall be sent as and when the Court summons the same during the hearing of Appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants/ appellants- Smt. Rashipati, the mother-in-law of the deceased and Alakh Nath Gupta, father-in-law of the deceased, were living separately from their son Sanjay Kumar Gupta, who was living with his deceased wife in a separate house.

9. It has been stated that since the parents-in-law were living in a separate house, they had no inkling as to what was going on in the house of their son and daughter-in-law. They had indeed gone to attend the birthday party of their two years old grand-daughter in the house of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, but had returned in the late night. They had no idea regarding the death of the deceased.

10. It has been submitted that learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgement has blindly believed the deposition of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 in their examination-in-chief and has totally discarded their admissions made in the cross- examination.

11. Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta and has stated that initially P.W.-1 was called up by Alakh Nath Gupta and told that her son-in-law had hanged himself and died. Such phone call was made at 02:00 a.m. When the relatives of the deceased reached the house of their son-in-law, they found that their daughter had died and her body was lying outside the house. They were told that she died of a heart attack and the body was cremated soon thereafter without there being any inquest report or post-mortem conducted on the body or any information being given to the Police Station concerned regarding unnatural death of the daughter-in-law.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out paragraph-8 of the impugned judgement of conviction.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants has stated that if there is any grievance of the complainant or of the respondents regarding unnatural death of the deceased, the burden would lie upon the husband of the deceased, namely, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, who is the son of applicants/ appellants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta, as he was living in the separate house with the daughter-in-law.

14. We have gone through the relevant extract of the impugned judgement of conviction as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the coloured photographs of the deceased, which show a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, whereas the argument was made before the Trial Court was that the deceased had died of a heart attack.

15. We do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicants/appellants- Smt. Rashipati and Alakh Nath Gupta.

16. Bail Application No.1 of 2024 moved on behalf of Smt. Rashipati in Criminal Appeal No. 2999 of 2024 and Bail Application No.1 of 2024 moved on behalf of Alakh Nath Gupta in Criminal Appeal No.3050 of 2024, are rejected. Order on Appeal Office is directed to prepare the paper-book within a period of three months. List this case in the second week of July, 2025. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Rahul