High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22085 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Arif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amir Khan Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. P.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This application for bail has been filed applicant Ramveer @ Ramnivas seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 811 of 2020, under sections 498A, 304B, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Loni, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. Record shows that marriage of applicant Arif was solemnized with Riyaz @ Arifa on 21.10.2018 (wrongly mentioned as 21.11.2018 in the body of F.I.R.). From the aforesaid wedlock, no issue was born. After expiry of a period of two years from the date of marriage of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 28.1.2020, in which wife of applicant namely, Riyaz @ Arifa died. The information regarding aforesaid incident at the concerned Police Station was not given by applicant or any of the family members of applicant but by an unknown person on telephone. On the aforesaid information, the inquest (panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. 29.9.2020. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (panch witnesses) the nature of death of deceased was characterized as homicidal. Thereafter an F.I.R. dated 29.9.2020 was lodged by Mustafa Khan (father of deceased) and was registered as as Case Crime No. 811 of 2020, under sections 498A, 304B, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Loni, District Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. seven persons namely, Arif (husband), Momina (mother-in-law), Saleem (father-in-law), Slam (Jeth), Kallu (Jeth), Kamarjahan, Abdullah have been nominated as named accused. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that the marriage of daughter of first informant was solemnized with applicant on 21.11.2018. At the time of marriage sufficient amount of goods were given. However, in- laws of daughter of first informant was dissatisfied with the same. Additional demand of dowry by way of Creta Car was made. As the additional demand of dowry was not fulfilled, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon deceased by her in-laws. Ultimately, daughter of first informant was put to death. After lodging of aforesaid F.I.R., post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 29.9.2020 itself. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased found following ante-mortem injuries on her body: " Multiple abraded contusion int he area of size 15 x 11.0 cm on front of nect below chin Rt. Clavicle area extending from chin to Rt. clavicle area in numbers." In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of throttling. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. who have also supported the F.I.R. Subsequently, Investigating Officer added section 302 IPC in the aforesaid case crime number. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation upto this stage, which is substantially adverse to applicant, he opined to submit charge sheet. Accordingly Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 21.12.2021, whereby 3 of the named accused i.e. Arif Husband, Saleem, father in law and Momina (mother-in-law) of deceased have been charge-sheeted under sections 498A, 304B, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act. The investigation in respect of other accused is said to be pending. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is husband of the deceased and a named as well as charge sheeted accused, but he is innocent. It is next contended that applicant was not present at the time of occurrence and therefore, he cannot be held to be responsible for the crime in question. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 2.10.2021. As such, he has undergone more than one year and one month of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed this application. He submits that deceased was a young girl aged about 30 years who has died in mysterious circumstances. The death of deceased has occurred within seven years of marriage and therefore, by virtue of statutory presumption contemplated under section 113B of Evidence Act, the death of deceased shall be classified as dowry death. However, up to this stage, applicant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption. It is thus submitted that occurrence has occurred in the house of applicant. Burden is upon the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence. However, aforesaid burden has not been discharged by applicant up to this stage. Plea of alibi raised by applicant is subject to trial evidence. As such applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. 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 complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that applicant is husband of deceased, the death of deceased has occurred within seven years of marriage, the occurrence has taken place in the house of applicant, neither the statutory presumption has been rebutted nor the burden in terms of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act has been discharged, the medical evidence clearly supporting the death of deceased had occurred on account of deliberate act of named/charge- sheeted accused, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be rejected It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 20.12.2022 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad