HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 49513 of 2019
Applicant :- Pintu Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Singh,Anand Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Anand Pal Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This second bail application has been filed by applicant for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 179 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, Section304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected, vide order dated 5.2.2018, which is reproduced herein under:-
“Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Rajesh Singh Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the first informant today in Court, which are taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Pintu Singh seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 179 of 2017 under Sections 498A, Section304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Ahirauli Bazar, District-Kushi Nagar.
The marriage of the applicant-Pintu Singh was solemnized with the deceased-Ranjna on 27.05.2015. However, within seven years of the marriage, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.07.2017 in which the deceased died. Consequently, a first information report dated 11.07.2017 was lodged in respect of the aforesaid incident wherein four persons including the present applicant were named as accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that out of four named accused persons three accused have already been enlarged on bail. He therefore submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the incident has taken place within one year of marriage. Therefore, the presumption is against the applicant in terms of Section 304B IPC which burden the applicant has failed to discharge. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report regarding the deceased.
From the perusal of the post-mortem report, which is on the record at page 39 of the paper book, it is explicitly clear that the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has opined that the deceased has died due to throttling.
In view of the aforesaid clinching evidence, learned A.G.A. submits that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to allow the bail application.
The bail application of the applicant-Pintu Singh is accordingly rejected.”
Learned counsel for applicant submits that two witnesses of fact have been examined, but they have not supported the prosecution story regarding demand of dowry.
Be that as it may, the post mortem report clearly shows that the death of the deceased has occurred on account of throttling. Admittedly, the death has occurred in the house of the applicant and act of throttling could not have been performed by deceased herself.
In view of above, no new or good ground has been made for release of applicant on bail, particularly, when the applicant is husband of the deceased.
For reasons stated above, present application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020