Allahabad High Court
Rahul Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23125 of 2019
Applicant :- Rahul Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahipal Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Yadav holding brief of Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of this bail application.
The applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No.770 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.420 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case admittedly marriage took place in the year 2014 and there was no demand of dowry raised by the applicant. No specific allegation was ever made upto this stage against the applicant and the applicant has been roped in, in this case merely because he is the husband of the deceased. The circumstances show that all the in-laws of the deceased tried to save her life by giving her best possible treatment, but she could not survive. After the marriage took place a son was born to the deceased out of the wedlock. Gradually deceased raised demand for giving house of the applicant's father to her as a pre-condition for living with peace with her in-laws. In that connection a case was also filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VII, Bareilly, copy of the plaint has been placed on record. Further, added that at the time of the death every relative of the deceased was present on the spot and in their presence inquest was prepared and after the post-mortem examination was done viscera was preserved and till then no FIR was lodged, but FIR was lodged belatedly after 3-4 days of the occurrence on 27.6.2018. The deceased was admitted in the hospital by the father of the applicant on 11.06.2018. It is noticeable that the 'Salphos' cannot be made to be consumed by any other person if compelled than by the voluntary option of the person concerned, who consumed it. In this case, there is no testimony as to who compelled the victim to take the 'Salphos'. No doubt in the viscera report 'Organo Phosphorus Insecticide' was detected, but there is neither any circumstance nor any direct testimony regarding the same to be administered to the deceased through the agency of her in-laws and particularly the applicant. It was only the determined insistence of the deceased for acquiring property of the applicant's father that she committed suicide by eating/consumed Salphos and the applicant being the only son of his father had no occasion to commit any crime as alleged. Considering the same aspects in its wide length, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already granted bail to all the co- accused. Applicant has no criminal history. He is a law abiding citizen and in case, applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of absconding or misusing the liberty of bail.
Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that all the in-laws of the deceased insisted for demand of dowry for construction of the house by demanding Rs.20 lacs and the demand was not fulfilled, therefore, the deceased was thrown out of the house on 8.2.2018, thereafter a compromise was reached through the agency of the concerned District Probation Officer, wherein, the applicant's side promised to keep safely with peace the deceased and this incident took place in the month of March shortly before the incident (in June, 2018). Now, it so happened that all the in-laws in order to give practical shape to their evil design somehow administered poison, thereafter in order to twist the situation got her admitted in the hospital but for no use and she ultimately died on 24.6.2018. There is presumption running against the applicant under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and as per the allegation made and statement recorded every ingredients of Section 304B IPC is complete. Marriage took place in the year 2014. This by itself is confirmative marriage within 7 years. Death itself is unnatural, in view of the poison detected in the viscera report. This by itself is indicative of fact that cruelty being perpetrated on the deceased and the allegations in the FIR is itself reflective of fact that the demand of dowry was raised, therefore, this presumption still stands against the applicant as he is the husband and custodian of the deceased. He further submitted that the deceased was separated from her in-laws and this fact is itself suggestive that it was the high-handedness of the applicant himself that he managed all these things, which culminated into death of the deceased.
The learned A.G.A. has virtually adopted the reply given by the learned counsel for the informant.
After hearing the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant, the reply by the learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of the various documents annexed with the present bail application and also looking to the allegations made in the FIR, and considering the gravity of the offence, no good ground is made out for bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected at this stage.
The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the trial court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Raj
