High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41663 of 2021 Applicant :- Sheeran Alias Cheenu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has not committed any offence. The applicant is unmarried sister-in-law of deceased. Only general and omnibus role has been assigned to all the four accused persons including the applicant and no specific role has been assigned to applicant. The marriage of deceased with brother of applicant has taken place on 25.12.2016. It was submitted that the allegations of dowry demand and harassment of deceased made against the applicant, are thoroughly false. As
Facts
per prosecution version, earlier, the deceased has lodged an FIR on 11.03.2021, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, but merely because earlier applicant was also named in that FIR, it does not mean that applicant was involved in the incident of this case. In the FIR, there was no such version that deceased has made any statement or that her statement was recorded in audio or video and that this version was developed in the second statement of witness Adil. Further, there is no certificate has required under provisions of Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act in respect of said audio and video clip and thus, the same cannot be read in evidence. It was stated by
Legal Reasoning
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. (See: State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi2; Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr.3; Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.4" 6. In the instant case, it is apparent from perusal of record that applicant is a young unmarried lady, who is sister-in-law (Nanad) of deceased and that no specific role has been assigned to her. In postmortem report of deceased, no injury has been shown on the body of deceased and as per FSL report aluminium phosphide has been found in the viscera of deceased. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, above stated case laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, specific role and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 7. Let the applicant Sheeran Alias Cheenu involved in Case Crime No. 190 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. 5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.3.2022 A. Tripathi Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.03.10 18:11:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
the learned counsel that in fact father of applicant has disowned husband of deceased and after that the deceased and her husband were ousted from the house, however, with intervention of some well wishers, the father of applicant has allowed them to live in his home. Further, at the time of alleged incident, the applicant along with her parents was residing at the house of one Rekha Yadav as her tenant and in this connection learned counsel has referred rent agreement, which is annexed as Annexure-20 to the bail application. It has been submitted that deceased has committed suicide and that applicant has never demanded any dowry nor she has harassed the deceased. There were no injury on the body of deceased and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. It was stated that as per FSL report, aluminium phosphide was found in the viscera of deceased. Referring to case of Jailpal vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 169 as well as physical and chemical properties of phosphorous, it has been submitted that it has foul odor resembling decaying fish or garlic and thus, it hardly can be administered to a person against his/her wishes and thus, in the facts of the present matter, it appears that deceased has consumed the same herself. Learned counsel has referred the statement of witnesses, examined during investigation, and submitted that being unmarried sister- in-law (Nanad) of deceased, the applicant was hardly going to be benefited by fulfillment of any dowry demand. The applicant is a unmarried young lady and except one case under Section 498-A IPC, which was lodged by the deceased, applicant has no other criminal history. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.07.2021, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. 3. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have strongly opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in FIR and that there are allegations that she along with co-accused persons used to harass the deceased on account of dowry. Regarding harassment of deceased, earlier deceased herself has lodged an FIR against the applicant and co-accused persons under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 11.03.2021 and in that matter, Investigating Officer has forwarded charge-sheet to Court on 01.04.2021 and that after coming to know about that charge-sheet, on the same day accused persons have committed incident of this case. The deceased was having one child from her marriage but that fact has been concealed by the applicant in her bail application. It was stated that in fact after the incident, deceased was taken to hospital by her brother and she was admitted in Maharani Laxmibai Medical College, Jhansi but in collusion and influence of accused persons, the concerned doctor has made tempering in the BHT of the deceased and in this connection learned counsel for the complainant has referred copy of BHT, annexed along with counter affidavit. It has been submitted that Investigating Officer was in league with accused persons and trying to help them and that investigation was not being conducted by him property and due to that reason, even the SSP, Jhansi has made observation that evidence of voice recording and video of victim has not been considered by the Investigating Officer and no arrest has been made and that investigation is shoddy. After that video and audio clip of statement of deceased were taken into possession. Referring to the version of said audio and video of deceased, it was stated that victim has made allegations against all accused persons and the said version goes to show that deceased was administered poison by accused persons. Referring to counter affidavit, statement of witnesses, and other documents, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that there is evidence that applicant was involved in harassment of deceased as well as in causing death of deceased. In support of his contention learned counsel has referred case of Prashant Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010)14 SCC 496. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 5. In case of Prashant Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held has under: "We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: