Samarth Vashisth vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 24083 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176711
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36473 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Samarth Vashisth
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr.Vikas Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Vinay Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel representing first informant.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application for bail has been filed by the applicantSamarth Vashisth seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2023, under Sections 306, 498-A IPC, Police Station Highway, District Mathura during the pendency of the trial.

4. Record shows that marriage of the applicant Samarth Vashisth was solemnized with Smt. Rachna on 28.4.2015. However just after expiry of a period of more than 6 six years and 10 months from the date of marriage of the applicant with the deceased an unfortunate incidentoccurred on 04.03.2023 in which the wife of the applicant namely Smt. Rachna died as she committed suicide by hanging herself.

5. It is the case of the applicant that information regarding the death of the deceased was given at the Police Station as is evident from the document occurring at page 18 of the paper book. On the above information, the Police of concerned Police Station arrived at the spot. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered and the proceedings of inquest commenced. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (panch-witnesses) the nature of death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. Thereafter the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. The doctor who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased found following ante-mortem injuries on her body:-

(i) Secretion mark from mouth Lt side of check.

(ii) Ligature mark of 23X2 cm present on front of neck,--on cut section of ligature mark - white, mark from right ear - 3 cm, from chin - 6 cm, & from Lt ear 5 cm.

6. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon the cause of death of the deceased was opined Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem Hanging.

7. After aforementioned proceedings were undertaken, first informant/brother of the deceased namely Rinku Sharma lodged a delayed F.I.R. dated 7.3.2023 which was registered as Case Crime No. 257 of 2023, under Sections 302, 498-A IPC, Police Station Highway, District Mathura. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely (i) Samarth Vashisth (husband of the deceased), (ii) Usha Vashisth (mohter-in-law of the deceased), (iii) DevendraVashisth (father-in-law of the deceased) and (iv) Bittu (Mediator) have been nominated as named accused.

8. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is the husband of deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused inasmuch as charge sheet has been submitted against three of the accused i.e. Husband, Mother-in-Law and Father-in-Law of the deceased on 25.04.2023, yet he is innocent and is liable to be enlarged on bail. The occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings has occurred after expiry of a period of 6 years and 10 months from the date of marriage of the applicant with the deceased. The bona fide of the applicant is further explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark no other ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she took an extreme step of terminating her life by committing suicide. The death of the deceased is a suicidal death. Attention of the Court was then invited to the F.I.R. and on the basis thereof, he submits that only allegation made in the FIR against the applicant is that cruelty was committed upon the deceased in pursuit of the demand of dowry. The learned counsel for applicant contends that the said allegations made in the F.I.R. is simply vague and bald. The same is devoid of material particulars. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan kausar Vs. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 in support of above. He thus contends that in the absence of material particulars with regard to the manner and time regarding alleged demand of additional dowry the said allegation is liable to be ignored by this Court. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 07.03.2023. As such he has undergone six months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. Therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystallized. Considering the nature of the case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not liable to be awarded the maximum sentence prescribed for Section 304-B IPC. On the cumulative strength of above, it is thus urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings has occurred within seven years of marriage and at the marital home of the deceased. In view of above, the death of the deceased is a dowry death. On the above premise, it is contended by the learned counsel for first informant that applicant is not only required to explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 106 and 113(B) of the Evidence Act. Attention of the Court was then invited to the statement of the son of the applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Copy of which is on record at page-58 of the paper book to buttress his submission that regularly the deceased was assaulted by the applicant. It is thus urged that criminality alleged against applicant is writ large on the face of the record. It is therefore submitted that no sympathy be shown in favour of applicant by this Court.

10. Havingheard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A for State, the learned counsel for first informant, and upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, complicity of accused, nature and gravity of offence and coupled with the fact that it is an admitted case of the parties that the occurrence has occurred after 6 years and 10 months from the date of the marriage of the applicant with the deceased, as per the post mortem report of the deceased, the nature of death of the deceased is prima-faice suicidal as the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging, the bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark no other ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased, the allegations made in the F.I.R. with regard to commission of cruelty upon the deceased is pursuit of demand of dowry are not worthy of reliance at this stage inasmuch as the same are devoid of material particulars, the anomaly occurring in the F.I.R. as noted above has not been explained by the first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, considering the nature and gravity of offence, the applicant is not liable to be awarded the maximum under Section 304(B) IPC, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystallized, however in spite of above the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case the applicant has made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicantSamarth Vashisth involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

ix. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

x. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

Order Date :- 6.9.2023

Aiman