HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. – 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 6634 of 2017
Appellant :- Harish Chandra Kori
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
(Ref. : Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.169109 of 2017)
This bail application has been filed in appeal on behalf of appellant -Harish Chandra Kori seeking his release on bail who has been convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.287 of 2009 (State vs. Harish Chandra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.83 of 2009, u/s 498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Kaushambi, District-Kaushambi.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been convicted for maximum period of ten years for the offence u/s 304B and he has already spent about nine years in jail, and therefore, he should be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Ordinarily in such matters where the appellant has undergone more than half of the sentence this Court feels inclined to take a liberal view in the matter but this cannot be done without paying due regard to the facts of each case and such a principle cannot be applied in a straight jacket manner universally without keeping in perspective the facts of each case. In the present case the most disturbing feature is the dying-declaration of the deceased recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate which is unambiguously incriminating in terms. The last words uttered by the dying deceased show that the present appellant husband did not do any job and used to remain in the house. Out of her two brothers-in-law, one of them remained unmarried, her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law lived along with father-in-law in the same house. In that background there was a quarrel in the house that took place soon before incident in between the husband and the deceased and thereafter the husband (present appellant) brought the kerosene oil and sprinkled the same upon her and then set her ablaze. It has been further stated by the deceased that nobody came to rescue her and her mother-in-law and father-in-law remained silent spectators from the distance. One brother-in-law Bhaiya Lal brought her to the hospital and the most painful disclosure by the deceased given before the Magistrate was that her husband i.e. the present appellant did not even come to attend or see her in the hospital. In the wake of this conclusive dying-declaration it is not difficult to see or say that it is a pure and simple case of murder and even though the appellant has been convicted u/s 304B I.P.C. and not u/s 302 I.P.C. but this is a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been convicted for life. Already he has been awarded a lesser sentence. In any view of the matter, at this stage there is no good ground to release him on bail and he must serve out the sentence unless there is any favourable verdict arrived at during the course of final hearing of the case.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.
(Order on Appeal)
Office is directed to prepare paper-book and list the matter in due course for final hearing before appropriate bench.
Order Date :- 5.4.2018