This judgment rejects a bail application filed by Vinod Kumar, accused of murdering his wife under IPC Section 302. The court considers the severity of the charge, lack of plausible explanation for the body's condition, and trial delays in its decision.
Bail application dismissed; applicant remained 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.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48782 of 2018
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated being husband of deceased; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by father of deceased on 1.7.2016, his 32 years old daughter Meera was married to applicant about 12 years back and was blessed with three sons and in the night of 30.6.2016 after pouring kerosene she was burnt to death by applicant and his parents and her dead body was thrown at the village pond and since applicant was having illicit relationship with some other girl so her murder was committed by accused persons; that it is wrong to say that applicant had illicit relationship with any other girl; that the real fact is that deceased committed suicide out side her house as mentioned in para 21 of affidavit given in support of bail application; that trial is in progress and during trial Smt. Asha Devi, mother of deceased has been examined as P.W.-1 on 10.8.2018 and in her statement on oath she has stated that she was informed by Manju, sister of applicant that Meera has committed suicide by hanging herself and she had no knowledge about illicit relationship of applicant with any other girl; that in view of above statement conviction of applicant is not possible; that co-accused Nand Lal and Itara Devi have been granted bail by other Benches of this Court vide orders dated 4.4.2017 & 1.9.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.44478 of 2016 & 33158 of 2017 respectively, copies collectively filed at Annexure-8; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 1.7.2016.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that dead body of deceased has been found at village pond outside the house of applicant, the husband of deceased for which no plausible explanation has been given; that as per
post-mortem report at Annexure-6 the cause of death was shock due to ante-mortem burn injuries; that post-mortem report does not state of any ligature mark or any other injury on the body of deceased and so the allegations of her committing suicide by hanging herself outside her matrimonial house are absolutely wrong and baseless; that in case of hanging the question of sustaining burn injuries does not arise and so also the applicant, the husband of deceased has failed to give any explanation of burn injuries on the body of his wife; that applicant is real and main culprit and being husband he may not seek parity with coaccused Nand Lal and Itara Devi, the old parents-in-law of deceased; that circumstantial evidence speak that deceased was burnt to death by her husband and her body was thrown at village pond outside house; that it is also noteworthy that statement of P.W.-1 Smt. Asha Devi was recorded on 10.8.2018 but despite lapse of more than four months she has not been cross examined by accused persons as yet and accused applicant is delaying disposal of trial only with an attempt to tamper with prosecution evidence; that neither first informant nor other material witnesses have been produced as yet and if the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail and will delay and defraud the disposal of fair trial; that the applicant is not entitled for bail.
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 Vinod Kumar in Case Crime No.124 of 2016, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Pawai, District Azamgarh, is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Kpy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the present circumstances.
If the applicant is a fit case for bail in a murder trial.
Vinod Kumar
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
