Single judge granted bail to husband accused of dowry harassment and wife's death under IPC 498A/304B and DP Act, noting conflicting reports and indicating accidental death remains a possibility.
Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding trial attendance and speedy trial conclusion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33190 of 2017
Applicant :- Kunwar Singh @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Ashwani Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and AGA for the State and perused the records.
The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.06.2017 in connection with Case Crime No. 232/2017 U/s 304B, 498A I.P.C. and U/s 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case by his in-laws by tailoring false and imaginary story. Though the applicant is husband of deceased but on account of an unfortunate accidental death of his wife and children, the in-laws in order to encash the above unfortunate accidental death for their monetary gain, have filed application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was converted into FIR and the police after holding a colourable investigation in the matter, has submitted a perfunctory charge sheet under the aforesaid sections of Penal Code.
The counsel for the applicant drawn the attention of the court that before filing 156(3) application, the informant has given application to Inspector General of Police about the alleged unfortunate incident and the Inspector General of Police before taking any action thought it proper to get the matter verified by C.O. Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar who after holding preliminary inquiry, has submitted its report on 31st May, 2016 that the marriage of deceased with the applicant was solemnized on 5.6.2010. The said police report shows that the couple was blessed with two children and they were residing at the upper portion of the house. There was no bad breath or discord between the husband and wife with regard to dowry or even otherwise but on 11.5.2016 the deceased went along with her kids to drop the elder one to school and her younger kid was in her lap. While crossing the railway track, she accidentally met with rail accident and both of them died on spot. It was concluded in the said report, that it was an accidental death by the train, however, when the 156(3) application was filed and same was converted into FIR as Case Crime No. 232/2017 and was registered U/s 306, 504, 506 I.P.C. by Smt. Shamla Devi on 24.3.2017. In this FIR, she alleged that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/and a motorcycle as an additional dowry. It was further alleged that the deceased was harassed and tortured, during these periods but the fact remains that during these years, the couple was blessed with two children and there was no complaint with regard to additional dowry earlier to this incident. It is alleged in the FIR that on 11.5.2016, she was harassed by the applicant and in-laws, she was left with no option but to jumped before the running train to commit suicide. Though the FIR was registered U/s 306, 504, 506 I.P.C. but after the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet U/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act.
The inquest of the dead body was conducted on the same day and inquest report shows that according to witnesses of panchayatnama, they have opined that she died accidentally, after train was run over her. The post mortem report shows that she has sustained as many as 4 injuries over her person and according to doctor; she died on account of hemorrhage and shock, as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
During course of investigation, an opinion was sought from Forensic Science Laboratory by S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar dated 8.5.2017 and the FSL report shows that according to Consultant, Medico legal Physician the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. There are ante-mortem fracture or skull and vertebral column, confirms train stuck and run over her, the person got suicidal thrust by the running train, resulted in-crush injuries. The seven month infant was also along with her died on account of said impact. The Chauki, GRP Anwarganj submitted its report in which after making in-depth investigation, has confirmed that the allegation of additional dowry demand are baseless and possibility of accidental death cannot be ruled out.
Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstance, the report of the FSL as well as report given by C.O. Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar dated 31.5.2016(Annexure No.2), it cannot be said with certainty that she has committed suicide by jumping before the running train on account of dowry harassment and the possibility of unfortunate accidental death cannot be ruled out. Thus under these circumstances, the applicant Kunwar Singh @ Sonu is entitled for bail at this stage.
However, this court is not making any comment upon the merit of the case or the mode of her death either way. It is the learned trial court decide the matter on its own, independent of any observation made by this court while deciding bail application by critically examining all the facts, circumstances and depositions made before him during trial, after applying its independent judicial mind and critical approach.
Let the applicant- Kunwar Singh @ Sonu be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 232/2017 U/s 304B, 498A I.P.C. and U/s 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar with the following conditions :-
(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.
IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at a liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
However, learned trial court is expected to gear up the trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided the applicant renders fullest cooperation in early conclusion of the trial.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Abhishek Sri./Rakesh Kr. Jaiswal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application is entitled to bail considering the conflicting police reports and possibility of accidental death.
Whether the bail should not lay any comment on the merit of the case or mode of death at this stage.
What conditions the trial court should impose on the bail applicant to ensure the speedy trial.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Kunwar Singh @ Sonu
State Of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
