This single judge rejected bail for an applicant charged in a domestic violence case resulting in a dowry death, citing an unnatural death with injuries. The court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings per Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Bail application rejected. Trial directed to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37432 of 2021
Applicant :- Vaibhav @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saumya Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Vaibhav @ Jeetu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0028 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Jahanganj, District Fatehgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but the deceased died by committing suicide, the allegations in the First Information Report are totally false and concocted. It is argued that there is an allegation that a First Information Report was even previously lodged, there was a dispute in between the couple due to which the deceased had received injuries but the same is false as is evident from the fact that in the said case, final report was submitted.
It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem report in which the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging. While placing the supplementary dated 29.11.2021, learned counsel has argued that the trial in the matter has started in which the first informant Anil Kumar has been examined as PW-1 who is the father of the deceased who has stated that there was never any demand of dowry, harassment or torture due to the same by the applicant and other persons. It is further argued that even Anurag the brother of the deceased was examined as PW-2 who has also stated about the same as has been stated by the first informant.
It is further argued that although the First Information Report has been lodged against the applicant Vaibhav @ Jeetu,
Gaurav/jeth, Shailesh @ Pinku/jeth, Smt. Rani/jethani and Poonam/jethani but the police has exonerated three accused persons and has submitted charge sheet only against the applicant and co-accused Gaurav. It is argued that the deceased and her husband were leading happy married life as is evident from the fact that from the wedlock two children were born who were daughters. It is argued that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of two witnesses recorded in the trial, the implication of the applicant is false and without any basis and with malafide intentions. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.04.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Alpi. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized around four years back. Apart from the ligature mark on the body of the deceased she was found to have received three other injuries which are a contusion of 15cm x 12.5cm, another contusion of 7cm x 5.5 cm and a lacerated wound of 14cm x 5.5cm. It is argued that the same goes to show that there had tortured and harassment of the deceased soon before her death.
It is further argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against him. In so far as, the arguments with regards to the evidence of the witnesses before the trial court is concerned, the same will be judged by the trial court in the trial. It is argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, the deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is an unnatural death. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evidence that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The postmortem report shows three other injuries apart from the ligature mark on the person of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with the applicant was solemnized around four years prior to her death. The death is unnatural. Since the trial is under progress, release of the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect in the trial. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant states that since the trial is in progress, a suitable directions be issued for expediting the trial.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655 ; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 , subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail during trial in a charge involving dowry death.
Whether the trial should be expedited under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of BiharReferred¶17
(2002) 1 SCC 655 · Who else cites this
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
(2015) 3 SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶17
(2017) 5 SCC 702 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vaibhav @ Jeetu
State Of U.P
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
