Suresh Nishad vs State Of U.P.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2530 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 54
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21198 of 2014
 

 
Applicant :- Suresh Nishad
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Vi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 310 of 2014, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj,  is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. Marriage between the applicant and the deceased  was solemnized in the year 2004. The couple were blessed with a son and daughter. He further submitted that the deceased had under gone an operation eight days before her death and she had died as a result of post operation complications. He next submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case by his father in law, although there is neither any direct nor circumstantial evidence on record indicating at the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. He lastly submitted the applicant who is in jail since 25.02.2014 and has no criminal antecedent to his credit, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the post mortem report of the deceased shows  the cause of death  of the deceased was due to coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He next submitted that  the applicant after committing murder of deceased had tried to dispose of her dead body without informing the parents of the deceased and also in view of the matter that the deceased had died in the applicant's house and her death being unnatural a very strong burden is cast upon him to explain the circumstances under which deceased had died which he has thus far failed to discharge and in view of the above, the applicant  is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.

Order Date :- 4.7.2014

Abhishek Sri.