The court rejected the bail application of Archana, accused of intentionally causing the death of her father-in-law by setting him on fire, holding it not a fit case for bail without commenting on case merits.
Bail application rejected; applicant directed to remain in custody.
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.
1
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10193 of 2019 Applicant :- Archana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.L. Varma,Chandra Bhushan Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri R.L. Varma, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged on 26.8.2018 by Smt. Sushila Devi, on 21.8.2018 at about 7:00 p.m., her husband was lying on a Cot at his door when Archana wife of his elder son, who is living separately and was jealous to her younger son, abused her husband and after pouring kerosene on him, put him on fire, which was extinguished by first informant, her daughter-in-law Pinki and neighbours and her husband was taken to Government Hospital, Ajeetmal, from where he was referred to Saifai, where he breathed his last on 25.8.2018; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that applicant was living separately and had no motive to cause death of her father-in-law; that applicant neither abused her father-in-law nor poured kerosene on him nor put him on fire; that there are material contradictions in averments made in F.I.R. and statement of first informant under section 161 Cr.P.C. at Annexure No.3 wherein she has stated that “अचरनावउसकापितआगलगाकरमंिदरकीओरसेभागगए", while in F.I.R. role of putting him on fire has been assigned only to applicant; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that she will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 23.12.2018.
2
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that this is a case of intentionally causing death of her father-in-law by applicant by pouring kerosene and putting him on fire and she is named in promptly lodged F.I.R., which has been lodged just after death and postmortem of husband of first informant; that it will not be correct to say that there is any contradiction in statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and averments made in F.I.R.; that in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. also, role of pouring kerosene and putting deceased on fire has been assigned only to applicant, however at the end, it has been stated that applicant fled away with her husband; that apart from it, eye witnesses Raj and Mustaqueem have also assigned role of abusing and pouring kerosene and putting deceased on fire only to applicant; that applicant has intentionally and willfully committed murder of her father-in-law and is not entitled for bail; that applicant if released on bail shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud fair disposal of trial.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of applicant Archana in Case Crime No.729 of 2018, under section 304 IPC, P.S. Ajeetmal, District Auraiya, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 13.3.2019 Tamang
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the circumstances in this intentional murder case warrant the grant of bail to the accused at this stage.
Whether the complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and totality of facts make this a fit case for bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Archana
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
