Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3003 (ALL)

Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti v. State of U. P.

2016-08-31

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This bail application has been moved seeking the release of applicant on bail in connection with Case Crime No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and D.P. Act, P.S.-Raipurwa, District-Kanpur Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 3. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the husband of the deceased and the incident is said to have taken place on 16.9.2013 in which the deceased received burn injuries and subsequently died on 23.9.2013 as a result thereof. Further submission is that the allegations of demanding the dowry and ill-treating the wife are all false and concocted. It has been further submitted that actually the deceased accidentally got burnt and was thereafter immediately rushed to the hospital for providing medical succour to her. Even at the time of incident, the applicant tried to save her and in that process he himself received some burn injuries. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.4 which is the paper issued by Regency Hospital, Kanpur after the death in which it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased was brought to the hospital by her husband Sunil Kumar, the applicant. Several papers regarding medical treatment of the deceased have also been annexed as Annexure No.2 starting from Page-22 up till 52 of this application. The attention has also been drawn to Annexure No.3 which contains the medical papers with regard to treatment of applicant himself. It has been further pointed out that the inquest proceedings of the deceased took place on the date of the death i.e. 23.9.2013 itself and amongst the witnesses of inquest proceedings not only the brother of the applicant namely Prakash was one of the witnesses, the first informant, who is mother of the deceased, was also one of the witnesses in the inquest proceedings. Submission is that after the incident, the information about the same was immediately given to the parental side who had soon thereafter arrived and were all the time visiting the hospital. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.7 which contains the photographs of cremation of the deceased in which also it has been pointed out that the husband is very much present. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.7 which contains the photographs of cremation of the deceased in which also it has been pointed out that the husband is very much present. The contention is that after the deceased succumbed to her injuries the dead-body was handed over to the applicant who himself managed the cremation of the deceased and performed her last rites. Argument raised is that it is so significant to note that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 28.9.2013. Submission is that had there been any truth in the allegations of demanding the dowry or committing cruelty upon the deceased then it is wholly incomprehensible as to how and in what circumstances the first informant or any other members of her family still chose not to report the matter earlier and would be waiting for so long. Further submission is that the deceased also did not die on the day of occurrence and battled for life for several days after 15.9.2013 up till 23.9.2013. The next submission is that it is not the case in which the first informant was not having the knowledge about the occurrence or happenings with the deceased. Further contention is that if the background of cruelty and the history of demanding the dowry was existing already then after the deceased got burnt the most natural instinct of the first informant would have been to bring this matter before the police to investigate. Conspicuously enough even when the first informant was herself the witness of inquest proceedings, neither on that date when the police officers were very much present nor till even a few days thereafter she ever reported the matter. It was only on 28.9.2013 that after confabulations and concerts the F.I.R. was lodged which is obviously the result of afterthought with the purpose to blackmail the applicant. Submission is that the post incident conduct of the applicant in carrying the wife to the hospital, incurring huge expenditure with regard to her treatment and performing all the duties as husband even after her death are all circumstances which are compatible with the innocence of the applicant and are wholly inconsistent with his guilt. Submission is that the post incident conduct of the applicant in carrying the wife to the hospital, incurring huge expenditure with regard to her treatment and performing all the duties as husband even after her death are all circumstances which are compatible with the innocence of the applicant and are wholly inconsistent with his guilt. Further submission is that the extra-ordinary delay in reporting the matter despite the time and opportunity being available is also a very strong circumstance which goes a long way to indicate that subsequently developed story of ill-treating and demanding the dowry is not very credible in nature. Contention is that the final adjudication on the point of guilt or innocence of the accused can be done after proper trial but as of now the aforesaid circumstances create a strong prima facie case for bail in favour of applicant. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel on the detention period and it has been pointed out that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.01.2014 virtually without any trial and there is hardly any hope of early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. 6. Let the applicant-Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti, involved in Case Crime No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and D.P. Act, P.S.-Raipurwa, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions : - (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 7. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 8. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.