Ram Bahadur Rai & Another vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 487 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Reserved
 
A.F.R.
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29607 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Rai & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Santosh Kumar Rai
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,A.K.Rai,R.N.Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.

This bail application has been jointly moved on behalf of the applicants Ram Bahadur Rai and Narendra Kumar Rai, who are involved in Case Crime No. 2258 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 and 201 I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, district Ghazipur.

For disposal of this bail application, it appears necessary that certain facts should be mentioned. The deceased of this case is one Smt. Pratibha Pradhan. The applicant Ram Bahadur Rai is her father-in-law whereas Narendra Kumar Rai is her brother-in-law (Jeth). Smt. Pratiba Pradhan was married to Munendra Kumar on 6.5.2007. She was employed with Indian Railways and on the fateful date she was posted at Railway Station, Ghazipur. As per allegations, she consumed poison on 10.7.2007 at her residence and she was rushed to the District Hospital, Ghazipur for her treatment wherefrom she was referred to Singh Medical and Research Center, Varanasi and therefrom to the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. The poor lady could not survive and expired on 11.7.2007. On 17.6.2008 an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur and under his orders an F.I.R. was lodged on 25.8.2008. The matter was investigated by a police officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. who in due course submitted a chargesheet against the applicants also who are in jail since 19.10.2011.

Smt. Nagina Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, moved for a Succession Certificate on 20.8.2007 before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghazipur claiming herself to be the sole heir of the deceased and prayed the court that a succession certificate may be issued in her favour regarding the movables and immovables of the deceased. In that application she arrayed as opposite parties Keshav Pradhan and Janardan Pradhan, who are the real paternal uncles of the deceased. Keshav Pradhan and Janardan Pradhan filed 'No Objection' in favour of Smt. Nagina Devi in the succession case. When the husband of the deceased Munendra Kumar, who was working in Asansol came to know of the succession case, he appeard beefore the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghazipur and filed an objection with an application under Order 1 Rule X of Civil Procedure Code on 17.11.2007. Thereafter the abovementioned application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 17.6.2008 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur by Janardan Prasad, real paternal uncle of the deceased. The amount of fund has been stated as Rs. 2,66,000/-. It has also been the case of the prosecution that on 9.7.2007 the deceased had sent a letter to her uncle in which she has mentioned that her husband and his relatives including the applicants were harassing her for dowry and there is a possibility that they may even kill her. It has also been mentioned in this letter that the accused persons of this case are pressurising her that she should pressurise her mother to give her landed property to the husband of the deceased.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the materials on record.

It has been submitted from the side of the applicants that as per the allegations, the alleged date of consumption/administration of poison to the deceased is 10.7.2007; that it was the mother of the deceased who rushed her to the District Hospital, Ghazipur and since it was an apparent case of suicide/murder, the Medical Officer Dr. Vibhuti Kumar Srivastava sent a memo to the S.H.O. Kotwali, Ghazipur on 10.7.2007 at 9.45 P.M. It has further been submitted that reference of this memo is there in C.D. No. VII dated 27.9.2008 which indicates that the Medical Officer concerned had informed the police on 10.7.2007 and in this memo it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased was brought to the hospital by her mother. Learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that the statements of Sanjay Singh, a Railway Officer at Ghazipur and Dr. Vibhuti Kumar Srivastava are available in the case diary. Both of them have said that the deceased was rushed to the District Hospital, Ghazipur by Sanjay Singh by his car and as per the memo it was the mother of the deceased who got her admitted there. This falsifies the contention of the State that no one from the Mayka of the deceased was with her when she consumed poison. It has further been submitted that the letter dated dated 9.7.2009 was kept in his pocket by the complainant and it has seen the light of the day when the objection in the succession case was filed by the husband of the deceased before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghazipur and thereafter an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved. In this background it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it appears that it is a case of food poisoning and after the death of Pratibha Pradhan, her mother in a collusive manner filed a succession case to obtain certificate in her favour regarding the properties of the deceased and when it was objected to by the husband of the deceased, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with false allegations was moved. Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, pointed out that the date of objection by the husband of the deceased before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghazipur is 17.11.2007 whereas the date of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is 1.6.2008 which is a subsequent date. It has also been submitted that the letter, said to have been written by the deceased, was never sent to a Hand Writing Expert to ensure whether it was a letter really written by the deceased or not. He has said that the I.O. has not undertaken this exercise. He has further submitted that the appellants rushed to Singh Medical Center at Varanai after getting the information of bad health of the deceased by Sanjay Singh, the Railway Officer at Ghazipur as is evident from his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mr. Srivastava has further said that since the death was not unnatural no inquest report was prepared and no post-mortem was conducted.

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the complainant Sri A.K. Rai and R.N. Rai and learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the letter dated 9.7.2007 is in the hand-writing of the deceased. He has further said that since before her death, on many occasions the deceased used to tell to her Mayka people regarding the bad and inhuman behaviour of her husband and his relatives by demanding dowry. He has further said that it is to be seen at the stage of trail whether the letter dated 9.7.2007 is a genuine or a forged document.

F.I.R. in this case is highly delayed. No reason whatsoever has been put forward before this Court as to under what circumstances, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned C.J.M., Ghazipur after 11 months. It has also not been explained as to under what circumstances Smt. Nagina Devi, mother of the deceased moved a succession case to have a certificate in her favour regarding the properties of the deceased arraying only the real paternal uncles of the deceased knowing it fully well that the husband of the deceased was alive. The objection of the husband of the deceased in the succession case was moved on 17.11.2007 and the Civil Court concerned took cognizance of his presence and thereafter the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 17.6.2008. In the instant case no inquest report has been prepared and no post-mortem was conducted despite the fact that the death has occurred in the Institute of Medical Sciences, B.H.U., Varanasi. It indicates that Mayka people of the deceased did not inform the hospital authorities that it was a case of suspected poisoning/murder. The amount of fund is said to be Rs. 2,66,000/- which is a huge amount. Both mother of the deceased and husband of the deceased are eager to have this money. It is also not clear as to under what circumstances the I.O. did not send the letter dated 9.7.2007, said to have been written by the deceased, to the Hand Writing Expert despite the fact that the hand-writing of the year 2005 of the deceased was available with the railway authorities at Ghazipur railway station.

In the above circumstances, I am of the view that both the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicants Ram Bahadur Rai and Narendra Kumar Rai, who are involved in Case Crime No. 2258 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 and 201 I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, district Ghazipur be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Before parting with this order I feel it necessary to advise the learned Magistrate/trial court to give necessary directions to the investigating agency under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to send the original letter dated 9.7.2007 to some governmental Hand Writing Expert and obtain an opinion whether the said letter was in the hand-writing of the deceased or not. It should be mentioned here that the annexure R.A.-1 of the rejoinder affidavit indicates that original hand-writing is available with the officers of the railways at Railway Station Ghazipur which is of the year 2005 which may also be treated as admitted handwriting of the deceased. However, it is left to the investigating agency of the case to find out and ascertain undisputed handwriting and signature of the deceased in order to compare the same with the above-mentioned letter dated 9.7.2009.

It should be mentioned here that further investigation is permitted under law as is held by the Apex Court in (Om Prakash Narang V. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791 which has been reiterated in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2078 (Hasanbhai Valibhai Quireshi Vs. State of Gujarat and others) in paragraphs 12 and 13.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur immediately by Speed Post who is directed to go through the entire order and do the needful in the matter at his end.

A copy of this order be given to the learned A.G.A. as per Rules.

Order Date :- 19.4.2012

S.B.