High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14915 of 2022 Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tribhuwan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that the observation made by this court in the order dated 13.11.2018, cannot be construed to mean that in case trial is not concluded within stipulated time, applicant is automatically entitled to bail. Drawing the attention of Court to the order sheet, learned A.G.A. submits that statement-in-chief of P.W.1 was recorded on 8.11.2021. However, for reasons best known to applicant, aforesaid witnesses has not yet been cross-examined. No explanation regarding above has been offered in the present application. Referring to the order dated 13.11.2018, learned A.G.A. submits that deceased has died on account of coma as a result of ante-mortem head injury sustained by her. Applicant is an inmate of the house. Therefore, burden is upon the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence by virtue of Section 106 of Evidence Act. However, the said burden has not yet been discharged by applicant. On the cumulative strength of above learned A.G.A. submits that no new or good ground has emerged in present application, for enlarging the applicant on bail. When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant the learned A.G.A. for State upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant, accusation made this court finds that no new or good ground is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Mr. Tribhuwan Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This is a repeat application for bail filed by applicant Ajay seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2018, under sections 498A, 304B, 316 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 376 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar @ Arun Kumar) under section 498A, 304B, 316 IPC, and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat, now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur. First bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 13.11.2018. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under: "1. Heard Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Ajay seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 316 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mangalpur, District-Kanpur Dehat during the pendency of the trial of the above mentioned case crime number. 3. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of the applicant, namely, Ashok was solemnized with Rekha Devi on 10.12.2013 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a male child, namely, Pawan was born. However, just after the expiry of a period of four years from the date of the marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 12.05.2018, in which the Bhabhi of the present applicant, namely, Rekha Devi died on account of certain injuries sustained by her. The inquest of the body of the deceased was performed on 13.05.2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the father of the deceased, namely Ram Sundar. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was characterised as homicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 30.09.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0141 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 316 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mangalpur, District-Kanpur Dehat. 4. In the aforesaid F.I.R., fiver persons, namely, Ashok (the husband), Ajay (the Devar), Archana (the Nanad), Narayan Babu (the father-in-law) and Ramkumari (the mother-in-law) of deceased were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 13.05.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was on account of "Coma" as a result of ante-mortem head injuries, which have been caused by hard and blunt object.The Doctor found the following four ante-mortem injuries: i. Contused swelling 4.1 cm x 3.2 cm on it parietal region 5.10 cm above margin of left ear pinna. ii. Abraded contusion 3cm. x 2.1 cm. left side of face on left jaw upper mitily present. iii.Contusion blackness on right eye and whole left side of face. iv. Traumatic swelling of area 6.1 cm x 3.5 cm on right side of parietal bone 4.5 cm above upper margin of right ear pinna. 5. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet only against three named accused, namely, Ashok (the husband) Ramkumari (the mother-in-law) and Narayan Babu (the father-in-law) of the deceased. The investigation in respect of other two accused is still continue. The Police during the course of investigation has recorded the statement of the minor son of the deceased namely, Pawan under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is on the record at page 37 of the paper-book. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Devar of the deceased. The applicant is in Jail since 12.08.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Placing reliance upon the document, copy of which is on the record at page 64 of the paper book, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the time of place of occurrence. He has referred the various statements of the villagers who supported the said plea. Except for the Nanad of the deceased, all the other named accused are languishing in jail. On the aforesaid factual premise, he submits that the applicant being the Devar of the deceased is liable to be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He has invited the attention of the court to the statement of the minor boy, namely, Pawan, who has clearly implicated the present applicant. He has further submitted that the deceased has died as unnatural death as she sustained four external injuries on her body. On the strength of the aforesaid, he submits that the applicant is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. The bail application of the applicant is thus liable to be rejected. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record and the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find any good ground to allow the present application. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected. 9. However, at this stage, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within one year provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial. 10. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance. " Learned counsel for applicant submits that vide order dated 13.11.2020, this Court had specifically directed Court below to conclude the trial within a period of one year, provided applicant renders all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of trial. With reference to above, learned counsel for applicant submits that inspite of the fact that a period of more than four years has rolled by from the date of order dated 13.11.2018, aforementioned trial has not yet concluded. He has then invited attention of Court to the order-sheet of aforementioned sessions trial and on basis thereof he contends that statement-in- chief of only one of the prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.1 has been recorded It is then contended that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as is crystallized in R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay (1992) 1 SCC 279. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.