Allahabad High Court

Sonu vs State Of U.P. on 25 September, 2024

Author:
Rajeev Misra

Bench:
Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:156895

Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27554 of 2024

Applicant :- Sonu

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sonu seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2023 under
Sections 498A
,
304B
,
,
I.P.C. and
Sections 3
/
of D.P. Act, Police Station-Hayatnagar, District-Sambhal, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Case No.201 of 2023 (
State Vs. Sonu and others
) under
Sections 323
,
,
498A
,
304B
, I.P.C. and
Sections 3
/
of D.P. Act, Police Station-Hayatnagar, District-Sambhal, now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi.

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 11.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35860 of 2023 (
Sonu Vs. State of U.P.
). For ready reference, the said order is reproduced herein under:

" 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Yadav alongwith Mr. Abhilasha Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Saurabh Sachan, the learned counsel for first informant.

3. Perused the Court.

4. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sonu, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2023 under
Sections 498A
,
304B
,
,
I.P.C. and
Sections 3
/
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Hayatnagar, District-Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

5. It transpires from record that marriage of applicant Sonu was solemnized with Sapna, the daughter of first informant on 06.12.2021. However, just after expiry of a period of one year and two months from the date of marriage of applicant an unfortunate incident occurred on 01.02.2023 in which the wife of applicant namely Sapna died.

6. It is the case of applicant that the information regarding aforesaid incident at the police station concerned was not given by applicant or any of his family members but by Veer Singh (father of the deceased).

7. Subsequently, first informant Veer Singh lodged an F.I.R. dated 01.02.2023 which was registered as Case Crime No.26 of 2023 under
Sections 498A
,
304B
,
,
I.P.C. and
Sections 3
/
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Hayatnagar, District-Sambhal. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Dayawati (Mother in law), Kavita (Nanad), Ankit (Devar) and Sonu (applicant herein)/husband of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.

7. Subsequent to the aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII
Cr.P.C
. The inquest (Panchnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. 01.02.2023. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was categorised as suicidal and the cause of death of the deceased was opined as hanging but in suspicious circumstance. Thereafter, post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the body of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The Autopsy Surgeon, found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

" i. 4.1 cm abrated contusion present on the left side of neck, just below the mandible.

ii. 30 x 1 cm Ligature mark present on the neck, 6 cm below the Rt. ear, 3 cm. below the left ear no gap present in the ligature mark, 5 cm below the chin on dissection subcutaneous tissue shown effusion of blood (injury no.1)

iii. 1x 05 cm abrasion on the left clavicle.

iv. 1 x 05 cm abrasion present on the left palm (dorsal aspect).

8. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under
Section 161
Cr.P.C. Witnesses so examined have substantially supported the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only two of the named accused namely applicant Sonu (husband) and Dayawati (mother-in-law of deceased) is established in the crime in question. He accordingly submitted the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2023 whereby above mentioned named accused have been charge sheeted under
Sections 498A
,
304B
,
,
I.P.C. and
Sections 3
/
Dowry Prohibition Act whereas the other two named accused have been exculpated.

9. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is the husband of deceased. Though he is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Disputing the correctness of the post-mortem report conducted by Autopsy Surgeon, he submits that as per symptoms noted by Autopsy Surgeon on the body of the deceased no case of strangulating is made out against applicant. Reference was also made to the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence in support of the said submission. It is then submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of terminating her life.

10. 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 custody since 03.02.2023. As such he has undergone more than 8 months of incarceration. Police report (charge-sheet) in terms of
Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits 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 co-operate with the trial.

11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since the applicant is husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The deceased has died on account of deliberate act of named as well as charge sheeted accused. The death of the deceased is an unnatural death. Occurrence has taken place in the house of applicant and within seven years of the marriage of the deceased, therefore, the burden is upon the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence as well as his innocence in terms of Section 106 and
Section 113B
of Evidence Act. However, applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden upto this stage. According to the learned A.G.A. correctness or otherwise of the post-mortem report cannot be disputed at this stage. Moreover, the credibility or reliability of the post-mortem report shall be subject to trial and shall be looked into by the trial court itself and not by this Court even though this Court is a superior Court. He therefore submits that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.

12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that the learned counsel for applicant could not dislodge the submission urged by the learned A.G.A., therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of the present application for bail, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

14. As a result, the present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

15. It is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 "

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to above order dated 11.10.2023, three prosecution witness have deposed before court below namely P.W.-1 Veer Singh, the first informant/father of the deceased, P.W.-2 Ram Singh, P.W.-3, Jagan Singh, who have been declared hostile. On the above premise, he therefore, contends that once the first informant/father of the deceased and other witnesses have not supported the F.I.R. in their depositions before court below, therefore, no good ground exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial.

6. 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 custody since 03.02.2023. As such, he has undergone more than one year and six and a half months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of
Section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, he thus submits 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 co-operate with the trial.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. Learned A.G.A. contends that applicant is the husband of deceased. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred in the house of the applicant. Therefore, by reason of above and by virtue of the provisions contained in
Section 106
of the Evidence Act, burden is upon the applicant himself to explain the manner of occurrence. However, upto this stage, the said burden has not been sufficiently discharged. Learned A.G.A. further submits that alternative charge under
Section 302
I.P.C. has been framed against applicant vide framing of charge order dated 20.11.2023. On the above conspectus, the learned A.GA. submits that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. As such, present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected.

8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat application for bail as noted herein above could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

10. As a result, present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

11. It is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 25.9.2024

YK