High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28487 of 2021 Applicant :- Charan Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Ratn Kumar Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri R.R. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Charan Chauhan for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 119 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 304, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kapsethi, District Varanasi, during trial. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the this is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, as his first bail application has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.5.2019 presided over by Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Arawal, J. (since retired) passed in Criminal Misc. B ail Application No. 45661 of 2015. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant belongs a very poor family and there was no question of demanding of any dowry and the allegations of demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- is not commensurate to the status of the party and the allegations have been aggravated in the first information report in order to harass and pressurize the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he was not having any concern with the affairs of the deceased as she was living separately in the same house with her husband (son of applicant) and by any stretch of imagination he could not be the beneficiary of the dowry which was being allegedly demanded. It is further submitted that the facts as are evident from the first information report are to the tune that on 5.6.2015 at about 12.00 P.M. when the deceased was holding her six months son in her lap the accused persons by pouring the kerosene oil put her on fire. The role which has been assigned in the first information report to the instant applicant is of giving 'exhortation' only and the role of lighting the match stick has been assigned to the husband of the deceased, namely, Azad. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased as per the postmortem report has been caused due to septicemia and shock as a result of infected burn injuries. The dying declaration of the deceased is also stated to have been recorded by an Executive Magistrate, wherein the deceased had stated that on an allegation of stealing Rs. 1000/- from the wallet/purse of father-in-law / Sasur (applicant) she has been put on fire. The name of the father-in-law is Shri Charan Chauhan and the incident is of 12.00 P.M. Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that the defence of the applicant is to the tune that on the basis of some unspecified reasons the deceased had put herself on fire. It is further submitted that dying declaration of the deceased has been recorded by the Executive Magistrate wherein no specific allegation of any kind has been attributed to the instant applicant by the deceased and as per the first information report the role of pouring kerosene oil has been assigned to mother- in-law- Sangeeta Devi and the role of lighting match stick has been assigned to the husband- Azad and Sangeeta Devi (mother-in-law) has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.11.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40982 of 2015. It is further submitted the applicant is in jail in this case since 6.7.2015 and in the preceding 7 years only one witness has been presented by the prosecution and only his in chief examination has been recorded and therefore it could not be contemplated that the trial of the case may be concluded in near future. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand submits that it is a case where the deceased and his son has been done to death in the most brutal way, by putting them on fire after pouring kerosene oil and therefore having regard to the heinousness with which the crime has been committed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, there cannot be any doubt that the allegations against the accused persons in the FIR are pertaining to committing the offence in brutal way. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and on the dying declaration of the deceased. The first informant in the first information report has categorically assigned the role of pouring kerosene oil on the deceased to the mother-in-law - Sangeeta Devi and of lighting match stick to husband- Azad while role of only giving 'exhortation' has been assigned to the instant applicant. The death of the deceased has been caused on account of septicemia which had occurred due to the burn injuries. The dying declaration of the deceased would reveal that the deceased had only stated the cause on the basis of which she was allegedly put on fire and had not assigned any specific role to any co- accused person. As stated earlier the role of pouring kerosene oil has been assigned to mother-in-law (Sangeeta Devi) and lighting of match stick to husband- Azad and only 'exhortation' has been attributed to the applicant who is languishing in jail for the last 7 years. The prosecution till now has been able to produce only one prosecution witness and there is no probability that the trial could be concluded in near future. The criminal history of two cases though have not been explained, but having regard to the fact that it is vehemently submitted that the applicant is not having any pairokar and he is in jail for the last 7 years and keeping in view the nature of cases shown as the criminal history, the criminal history is not of much substance. Thus, without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Charan Chauhan involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case. Order Date :- 25.4.2022/Muk Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.26 18:09:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad