HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. – 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 1315 of 2017
Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 84029 of 2017
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
Appellant Dinesh Kumar is the husband of the deceased who has been held guilty by the trial court for committing dowry death of his wife.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is that actually the deceased while searching a blanket accidentally caught fire, as a result of which she had got badly burnt. While the appellant was rushing her to hospital Gorakhpur she succumbed to her injuries and died on the way. Information in this regard was duly furnished to the police station which was also recorded there in the General Diary. The argument is that it is not a case where either the accused has ever absconded from the scene or has tried to evade the administrative authorities or the process of law. To the contrary this is a case in which the conduct of the accused was such which shows that he had nothing to hide and he was the first person who approached the police authority and it was on his information that the police got mobilized and the inquest proceeding had taken place as a result of the same. Further submission is that due information was also furnished to the parental side and the brothers of the victim had also arrived after receiving the information so sent. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that one of the witnesses of inquest namely, Jai Prakash was the real brother of the deceased. The incident had taken place in the mid night of 16/17.6.2001, while inquest proceeding had taken place the next day on 18.6.2001 before the police authorities. Emphasis was laid on the fact that even though the real brother of the deceased was a witness of the inquest proceeding but at that stage, the brother did not make any complaint against the appellant. Contention is that actually, the parents of the deceased had no reason to have any complaint against the appellant as the deceased was never ill-treated by the accused nor was there any demand of dowry from his side. it was only after a lot of confabulations and consultations that subsequently on 20.6.2001 the present FIR in question was lodged on ill-advice. Submission is that this delay in lodging the FIR is also a strong indication to suggest that a subsequent version introduced on behalf of the brother of the deceased is a clear afterthought and goes to the root of the matter and cuts against the credibility of the prosecution version. The argument is that if there was really any such background of demand of dowry as has been suggested and if actually the deceased was ill-treated by the accused-appellant, there is no reason to explain why the FIR was not lodged on the same day, especially when the parents were duly informed and the real brothers of the deceased were very much present at the time of cremation of the deceased and the inquest proceeding. Emphasis was also laid on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the appellant is in jail since 15.8.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early hearing of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant is a patient of HIV and is in a very bad phase of health and his treatment can be properly done only if he is released on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant 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 appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place. Learned counsel argues that the trial court has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in right perspective and the subsequent conduct of the accused-appellant after the death of the deceased has escaped proper judicial consideration which in the facts and circumstances of the case was quite compatible with the appellant’s innocence.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
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 hearing and conclusion of appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the appellant- Dinesh Kumar, convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 190 of 2001, State of U.P. Versus Dinesh Kumar and others, arising out of case crime no. 76 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Bargadwan, District- Mahrajganj 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 acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
Order on Appeal.
The appeal may be listed for hearing in due course after preparation of the paper book.
Order Date :- 14.5.2018