High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33654 of 2021 Applicant :- Hargovind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh,Kailash Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhanu Prakash Verma Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Kailash Prasad Pandey along with Mr. Garun Pal Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma, the learned counsel for first informant. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Hargovind seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 197 of 2021, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. act, Police Station- Kosikalan, District Mathura during pendency of trial. Perused the record. It transpires from record that marriage of applicant, Hargovind was initially solemnized with Pooja. From the aforesaid wedlock a daughter namely Deepika was born. However, relationship between the couple became strained on account of some marital discord. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated for a decree of divorce which was ultimately granted. The first marriage of deceased, Shama was solemnized with Omdutt. From this wedlock a daughter namely Shivani was born. However, this marriage also landed in troubled waters. Resultantly proceedings for divorce were initiated. Ultimately a decree of divorce was granted on 14.12.2019. Subsequent to above, marriage of applicant, Hargovind was solemnized with Shama (deceased) on 10.06.2020. However, just after expiry of a period of nine months and 15 days from the date of marriage of applicant with Shama (deceased), an unfortunate incident occurred on 25.03.2021, in which wife of applicant namely Shama and her minor daughter died on account of an accident. The information regarding aforesaid incident was given by one Preetam who was posted as Pointman at Railway Station Kosikalan, District Mathura at the G.R.P. Police Station at Railway Station Kosikalan, District Mathura. On the aforesaid information, the inquest of the deceased were conducted. In the opinion of panch witnesses the nature of death of deceased was accidental. Thereafter the post-mortem of bodies of the deceased, namely Shama and Shivani were conducted on 26.03.2021. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased, Shama: "Crushed injury all over body brain and all internal organs coming out side from body and crushed injury." The autopsy surgeon found following ante mortem injuries on the body of deceased, Shivani:- "1. Skull bone fractured brain matter coming out from cranial cavity. 2. B/L both upper limb and lower limb fractured. 3. All ribs fractured and B/L lungs and heart lacerated. Large intestines and mesenteric vessels Pale. Liver including Gall Bladder B/L Pale." Subsequent to above, an F.I.R. dated 27.3.2021 i.e. after two days from the date of incident came to be lodged by first informant Balram (father of deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 197 of 2021, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. act, Police Station- Kosikalan, District Mathura. In the aforesaid F.I.R. five persons namely, Hargovind, Sukhdev, Dhanraj, Budhram, Smt. Kishan Vati @ Kishan of deceased were nominated as named accused. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. it is alleged that marriage of the daughter of first informant was solemnized with applicant, wherein a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is alleged to have been spent by him. Subsequent to above, additional demand of dowry by way of four wheeler was raised. However, as alleged demand of dowry was not satisfied, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon daughter of first informant. Ultimately, deceased was forced to commit suicide on 25.3.2021. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant as well as other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. He also collected certain other material and on basis thereof, Investigating Officer opined to submit charge sheet. He, accordingly submitted charge sheet dated 04.07.2021 whereby applicant alone has been charge sheeted whereas the other named accused have been exculpated. What has happened subsequent to the submission of aforesaid charge sheet has not been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application nor the same could be disclosed by counsel for the parties at the time of hearing of present bail application. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is husband of deceased and a named as well as charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in above mentioned case crime number. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for applicant submits that it is an undisputed fact that applicant and deceased both are divorcee. Therefore, allegations made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of additional dowry appear to have been engineered for the purpose of present prosecution. Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., there is an explanation to the fact that there was an immediate demand of dowry before the occurrence. He, therefore, contends that since there was no immediate demand of dowry, immediately before the occurrence, therefore no offence under section 304-B IPC can be said to have been committed by applicant. It is then contended that from the post mortem report of the deceased, it is a proved fact that that deceased have died on account of an accidental death which is also the admitted case of the prosecution. However, from the material collected by Investigating Officer as contained in the case diary of concerned case crime umber, it cannot be definitely inferred that applicant is guilty of instigation, conspiracy or abetment in the commission of alleged crime. Applicant has clean clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 20.04.2021. As such, he has undergone more than ten months of incarceration. Learned counsel for applicant also contends that since charge sheet has already been submitted, the evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution stands crystallized. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial of aforesaid case crime number. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged 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 cooperate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma, learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They jointly contend that since applicant is the husband of the deceased and also a named accused as well as charge sheeted accused, he, therefore, does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. Deceased had died just after nine months from the date of her marriage alongwith her minor daughter which itself is a sufficient circumstance to infer the guilt of applicant. Learned counsel for first informant then submits that brother of the applicant was married subsequent to his marriage. In the aforesaid marriage, a four wheeler namely "Wagon-R Car" was given. The additional demand of dowry was raised by applicant thereafter. However, he could not disclose the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant nor the time period when additional demand of dowry by way of a four wheeler car was raised by applicant with first informant. He also contends that looking into the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased and the scene of occurrence the death of deceased is homicidal inasmuch as they have been murdered by applicant. To lend legal support to his submission he has relied upon judgements of Apex Court in Raminder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 582 and Ram Chandra Tiwari and Ors. Vs. State of U.P, Manu UP O791 1997. On the cumulative strength of above it is urged that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant, and the bail application be rejected. In rejoinder learned counsel for applicant has rejoined the submissions urged by him in support of the bail application. He further contends that the allegations made in F.I.R. pertaining to additional demand of dowry do not commensurate with the status of father of the deceased as he is working as a Class-IV employee in an educational institution. It is thus urged that allegations made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of additional dowry is wholly false and concocted. Same has been engineered for the purpose of present criminal proceedings. Repelling the arguments raised by learned counsel for first informant that present case is a case of murder and not a case of suicide by way of accident, learned counsel for the applicant contends that since the body of the corpus has been disposed of no hypothetical assumptions can be drawn regarding the nature of death of deceased. The opinion expressed by the autopsy surgeon will have to be accepted. To buttress his submission he has referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Seema Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2018) 16 SCC 10, wherein an identical question has been answered in favour of accused therein. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Hargovind, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 10.3.2022 Arshad Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.12 16:54:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad