High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47360 of 2022 Applicant :- Sunil Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Akash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Pandey Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Shri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 110 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, police station Pachokhara, district Firozabad, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant Smt. Pravesh Devi lodged a report on the basis of an application and order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant and his wife Smt. Renu with the allegations inter alia that Ghurelal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) had five daughters and no son. The informant is the youngest married daughter of the deceased. The mother of the informant had also died. The applicant is the son of ( Smt. Banti) sister of the informant and maternal grandson of the deceased. The deceased was the owner of agricultural land at Gata No. 114, Mauja Etah, Tehsil Tundla (Firozabad). The allegations against the applicant is that being relative (maternal grandson) of the deceased, he used to live with the deceased along with his wife and in order to grab the movable and immovable property of the deceased, without information to the deceased, got a gift deed registered in his favour in Tehsil Tundla on 23.4.2021 and on 12.5.2021, they mixed poison in the meal of the deceased, due to which he died. The allegations against the applicant and his wife are that they have also withdrawn the money of the deceased from the bank. After the death of the deceased, the applicant has moved an application before the SHO, Pachokhara, district Firozabad for conducting the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. Thereafter, inquest proceedings on the body of the deceased was conducted, in which the applicant was also one of the inquest witnesses. According to the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the deceased suddenly died, but in order to ascertain the cause of death, post-mortem was conducted on the cadaver and viscera was preserved. In the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra dated 31.3.2022, aluminium phosphide was found. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR of the incident dated 12.5.2021 was lodged on 06.7.2021 for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is pointed out that FIR has been lodged against the applicant under Sections 302, 406, 419, 467 and 468 IPC, but the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant only under Section 302 IPC, which belied the prosecution case in respect of cheating, forgery and cheating for forgery. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant has produced the copy of Khatauni of Gata No. 114, which indicates that by donation letter (gift deed) dated 23.4.2021, only half of the land of the aforesaid Gata has been donated/transferred to the applicant and if the intention of the applicant was to commit forgery and cheat the deceased, he should have got full land of the aforesaid Gata transferred in his name. It is also pointed out that remaining land has been equally distributed to all the sisters of the first informant. So far as presence of aluminium phosphide in the viscera is concerned, placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 169, learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of its very pungent smell (which can drive out all the inmates from the house if left open) it cannot be taken accidentally. Learned counsel also submits that for conducting the post-mortem on the body of the deceased the applicant himself has given the application to the Station House OfÏcer, police station Pachokhara, district Firozabad, which shows his bona fide. Learned counsel for the applicant has also annexed the copy of statement of Account of deceased Ghure Lal, which shows the closing balance of Rs. 10,960/- and that no major transaction took place from the aforesaid account between 27.01.2021 and 25.06.2021. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant does not have any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 13.7.2022 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that a suit for cancellation of donation letter (gift deed) dated 23.4.2021 has been filed by the first informant before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that during investigation, the applicant has been exonerated under Section 406, 419, 467 and 468 IPC. I also find that in the post-mortem examination report, there was no injury and that the post-mortem was conducted on the application of the applicant itself. I also find that if the intention of the applicant was to cheat the deceased, he should have got the whole land transferred in his name. Devendra Kumar and Dharmveer Singh, who were the witnesses of gift deed have stated that the deceased had transferred the land in favour of the applicant because the deceased was happy with the services rendered by the applicant to him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Sunil Tyagi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Ishrat Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad