Rinku Gautam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 20679 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rinku Gautam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / ... on 11 June, 2024

Author: Shamim Ahmed

Bench: Shamim Ahmed

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42880
 
Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3037 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rinku Gautam
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin.Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Ayush Chaudhary,Rinku Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
 

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant today in Court is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ravi Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The applicant, Rinku Gautam, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0075 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC, Police Station Dubagga, Disrict Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant is the husband of the deceased and the marriage of the applicant and deceased was solemnized in the year 2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. At the time of marriage, the applicant was working in some private job and thereafter he was selected in the police services and the deceased was living with the applicant. The relationship between the applicant and the deceased was cordial and from the wedlock one male child was born and the child was also living with the applicant and the deceased.

5. Due to some mental tension and the reason being that the present applicant, who was in the police service, used to come home during late hours in the night, due to which some quarrel took place between the husband (present applicant) and wife (deceased) on the date of incident. Due to mental tension the wife of the applicant (deceased) committed suicide by hanging herself inside the room. When this fact came in the knowledge of the applicant, he informed the police as well as to the family members of the deceased i.e., father of the deceased.

6. The inquest proceedings were conducted in the presence of the father of the deceased and other family members. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem on the next day i.e., 25.06.2022. As per postmortem report, five injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel for applicant submits that all those injuries were received after the dead body was brought down from the roof. No serious injuries were found on the body of the deceased. As per postmortem report, the doctor has mentioned the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-motem throttling/hanging as noted. However, Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. Hyoid bone was found intact. Viscera report is also not available and this fact has also been confirmed by the learned A.G.A.

7. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that as per the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, the definition of hanging is given and the same is almost identical to the postmortem report given by the doctor regarding injury. Thus, prima facie, from perusal of the Modi Medical Jurisprudence and postmortem report, the case appears to be of hanging and not strangulation or murder.

8. It was further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that first informant Naturi Ram, who is the father of the deceased, in his statement dated 31.01.2024 recorded before the trial court i.e., the Additional District Judge-IV/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow has clearly stated that the daughter of the complainant has not made any previous complaint against the applicant regarding the torture or causing cruelty or demand of dowry or threatening to life. He also admitted in his statement that he was informed on 24.06.2022 by the applicant regarding the death of his daughter. He also submitted that he has not given the application to the police for lodging of the FIR in his handwriting but the same was typed by some person and he only put his signature without going through the contents of the application. The informant further submitted that at the time of the inquest proceedings, he was present on the spot. He also admitted the fact that he has not seen the incident and he also did not know that how his daughter died. The first informant also admitted the fact that the applicant has not murdered the deceased and the applicant is not involved in the death of the deceased rather he admitted that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. The statement of the first informant (PW-1) has been filed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.4.2023, which is on record.

9. The statement of the son of the deceased and applicant has also been annexed in which he has not said anything about the involvement of his father in the alleged incident. The statement has also been filed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today i.e. 11.6.2024, which is on record in compliance of the order dated 17.5.2024 passed by this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as the relationship with the wife (deceased) and the applicant was cordial and no prior complaint was made to any of the authorities with regard to causing cruelty or demand of dowry or threatening of death, thus it is unfortunate that due to some minor altercation between the applicant and his wife (deceased) with regard to coming late in the night as the applicant was in police service, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in the room and when the said fact came in the knowledge of the applicant without any further delay, he had informed the police and the first informant. Thus, there is no role of the applicant in causing death of the deceased, who was the wife of the applicant.

11. It was also stated before this Court that the applicant, who is in police service, has no previous criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 26.6.2022 and has already undergone substantial period of detention.

12. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

13. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that ratio of law applicable in above those cases is also applicable in the case of the applicant, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

14. Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. The applicant is in jail since 26.06.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

15. Shri Ravi Srivastava, learned A.G.A. has opposed the entire arguments as advanced by learned counsel for applicant and submits that the deceased was the wife of the present applicant and she committed suicide when the applicant was present in the house but he did not dispute this fact that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging/strangulation and also did not dispute this fact that the first informant, who is the father of the deceased has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version and has clearly stated in his statement before the trial court on 31.1.2024 that there is no role of the applicant in the death of the deceased and the applicant was also not involved in the incident and the FIR was also signed on the typed application, contents of which were not known but ultimately he submits that as the prima facie case is made out, thus the bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

16. After considering the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the record, the first information report, the postmortem report, the statement of the first informant (PW-1) dated 31.1.2024 and statement of the son of the deceased and other documents filed in support thereof, and keeping in view the fact that no serious injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the Hyoid bone was found intact and taking into consideration the definition of hanging given in the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and postmortem report, the case appears to be of hanging and not strangulation or murder and statement of PW-1 Naturi Ram that his daughter had not made any complaint regarding torture or causing cruelty or demand of dowry or threatening to life and he had not given any application to the police for lodging of the FIR in his handwriting rather it was a typed application by someone and the first informant had put his signature without going through the contents of the FIR and he was present at the time of the inquest proceedings and further considering this fact that the first informant (PW-1) who is the father of the deceased has stated before the trial court in his statement dated 31.1.2024 that the applicant has no role in the murder of his daughter nor he was involved in the said incident and the first informant had also not seen the incident. Thus the first informant (PW-1) was declared hostile and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

17. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant, Rinku Gautam, involved in Case Crime No. 0075 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC, Police Station Dubagga, District Lucknow, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

19. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

20. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 11.6.2024

Virendra