Dismissed

Hariom @ Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/3039/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected bail for the applicant, husband of a deceased woman, in a case involving strangulation and unnatural death. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Hariom @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3039 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Hariom @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Hariom @ Sonu , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No. 60 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0274 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri.

¶7

The first information report of the present case was lodged on 09.09.2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act by Ranjeet Singh, the father of the deceased Smt. Manju alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the applicant around three years back. After some months of marriage, her daughter informed him that there is demand of additional dowry due to which she is being physically and mentally tortured. The demand was of transfer of a plot worth Rs. Seven lakhs. Later on the first informant came to know that the accused persons being six in number including the applicant have strangulated his daughter, assaulted her and have murdered her. The applicant from his mobile informed the first informant that his daughter has been killed. He went to her matrimonial house and found his daughter lying dead on the bed. The accused persons were absconding. His daughter has a 09 months old child who was also not present at the place of incident.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the entire prosecution case is false and a concoction. The trial in the present matter has started which is numbered as Sessions Trial

¶9

No. 60 of 2020 in which Ranjeet Singh the first informant was examined as P.W.-1. He has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is further argued that Smt. Meena Devi, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.2 before the trial court who has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant and the version of the first information report is false and a concoction. It is argued that the applicant although is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the said two witnesses have stated that there was never any cruelty of their daughter and her daughter never complained of any such act to them specifically with regard to dowry or any cruelty being meted out to her.

¶10

Learned counsel has placed paragraph 15 of the affidavit and has argued that the deceased Smt. Mamta has committed suicide because Satyaveer Singh her jija had taken Rs. 1 lakh 50 thousand from her for purchasing a plot in the year 2018 and the said amount was not returned. She was under depression because there was urgent need of money for doing business of purchasing potato by her husband. It is further argued that Ramsanehi, grand father-in-law ; Vedwati, the mother in law ; Arvind Singh, the father in law ; Praveen Kumar and Kumari Suman, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches including this Bench of this Court vide orders dated 13.02.2020, 12.06.2020, 07.07.2020 and 30.09.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6869 of 2020, 13309 of 2020, 18179 of 2020 and 25270 of 2020 the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexures-6-9 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 and is in jail since 27.09.2019.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that apart from the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, there are six other injuries found on her person. The doctor has opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation which in any event of matter cannot be due to suicide as is being stated in paragraph 15 of the affidavit. It is argued that the deceased was married to the applicant around three years back. She died in her matrimonial house an unnatural death.

¶12

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has received seven injuries on her person. The cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation which rules out the possibility of suicide. The death is unnatural in her matrimonial house within three years of marriage.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected .

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶15

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, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.

¶16

Any observation made in this order is only for the purposes of deciding the present bail application and may not in any manner effect the trial.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.2.2022

¶18

AS Rathore

¶19

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.14 17:08:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom @ Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom @ Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harwati Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pratap Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Sitaram Vs State of U.P.

Farman Vs State of U.P.

Uramila Devi Vs State of U.P.