Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 743 (ALL)

SHYAM KUMAR SHUKIA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2000-05-17

KRISHNA KUMAR LAHOTI

body2000
KRISHNA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the second bail application. The first bail application was heard on merit and was rejected vide order dated 26-10-1999. The applicant who was challenged under Sections 498-A/304-B/120-B. IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Police Station Ghatainpur. District Kanpur Dehat prays for bail. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant argued that the photo-copy of the case diary Parcha No. 10 shows that by 9-9-1999 the viscera was not sent to chemical examiner. Lucknow. In the earlier order it was mentioned that viscera was not sent by the Investigating Officer to chemical examiner and action was taken only on the intervention of the Court. Now in paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter-affidavit it has been stated that viscera was sent for examination 2-6-1999 and report was received on 12-10-1999. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that poison has been found in the viscera the copy of the report has been flied as Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. From the report it is made out that the date mentioned is 22-6-1999 and 2-6-1999. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended that it is highly doubtful at this stage that viscera was sent for chemical examination on 2-6-1999 or 22-6-1999. in view of the entry in case diary in parcha No. 10. dated 9-9-1999 and the assertion made in paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter, affidavit the date of sending viscera to chemical examiner has become doubtful. The report received from the chemical examiner is in respect of the viscera sent on 2-6-1999. At this stage the said report cannot be held to be connected with this crime in view of entry in parcha No. 10 of case diary that by 9-9-1999 viscera was not sent to chemical examiner. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant rightly contended that at this stage the accused is entitled for benefit of this discrepancy. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that Smt. Seema died at her parents house. There was dispute between husband and wife and even a criminal case was registered on the complaint of Smt. Seema against her husband. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant further contended that it is highly improbable that when the parties had not reached to a compromise the husband and wife could be allowed to remain at night in one room. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant further contended that it is highly improbable that when the parties had not reached to a compromise the husband and wife could be allowed to remain at night in one room. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the occurrence took place in the night 23/24-2-1999 but the report was lodged on 29-5-1999. The application allegedly given to C. O. and Superintendent of Police have not been submitted by the complainant. It is also submitted that on the spot nothing was found to support the plea that some poisonous substance was administered by the applicant to his wife. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended that some further documents have been received by the applicant which were not available at the time of argument of first bail application and one of the documents is a report lodged by Smt. Ram Rani Shukla the complainant of this case on 25- 2-1999 in the police station at Ghatampur in which she had stated that on 24-2-1999 her daughter Smt. Seema became ill she was taken to hospital where condition was deteriorated. While she was bringing Smt. Seem a to Kanpur on the way she expired. She had disclosed a suspicion that her daughter had taken some poison. She had not stated therein that the applicant had reached her house and remained with his wife Smt. Seem a in the night in the same room. This document is very relevant and that appears to be the reason that neither the case was registered nor there was any mention of this report in the case diary and in any view of the matter this complaint submitted at police station Ghatampur clearly shows that it was Smt. Seema who herself took some poison. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that this case was registered at G. d. No. 7 on 25-2-1999, a copy of G. D. was also flied. ( 7 ) CERTAINLY this paper is new ground for consideration and in view, of the fact mentioned in the said report dated 25-2-1999, the applicant is entitled to bail. ( 8 ) THE bail application is allowed. ( 7 ) CERTAINLY this paper is new ground for consideration and in view, of the fact mentioned in the said report dated 25-2-1999, the applicant is entitled to bail. ( 8 ) THE bail application is allowed. The aforesaid applicant is allowed to remain on bail, on his furnishing two sureties and personal bond of the same amount to be fixed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Bail application allowed. .