HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 16404 of 2019
Applicant :- Anand Alias Lalu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt,Santosh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh and Sri. J.K. Rai, learned Brief Holders for the State of U.P and perused the material available on record.
By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.175 of 2018 under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad.
Urge made on behalf of the applicant has been confined to the ambit that the applicant happens to be husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The marriage took place in the year 2014, whereas, the incident occurred after four years of the marriage. In between 2014 to 2018, there was neither demand of dowry nor was any complaint ever made by the deceased and the informant side. Therefore, it is a case where no dowry demand is proved as such and cannot be believed. It so happened that on the fateful day, I.P.L. cricket match was going on and was being watched by family members whereupon quarrel took place between the applicant and his wife (deceased) on preparation of food due to which the deceased perhaps got agitated and she after hanging her little child has committed suicide. The informant side was immediately informed and the dead bodies of both the deceased were taken down only after arrival of the informant side. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed offence. In case, the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 16.05.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has contented that in this case, the applicant has not rebutted legal presumption drawn against him. The perpetration of cruelty upon the deceased is obvious and it does not stop till death, for the reason that post mortem examination report is suggestive and indicative of fact that as many as four ante mortem injuries have been noted by the doctor while conducting the post mortem examination of the deceased. That way, perpetration of cruelty by causing injuries on the body of the deceased stands proved which has not been negated by the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant being husband is presumed to rebut the presumption created under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Considered the rival submissions, perused the material brought on record and the enormity of the offence. No good ground is made out for bail.
Consequently, the instant bail application is rejected, at this stage.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding of the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, expeditiously from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it, if there is no legal impediment in its way.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 1.11.2019