Dismissed

Manoj Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023BAIL/30281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal court rejected bail application in a case involving death by burn injury, noting the gaps in the applicant's explanation despite minor son's injuries.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected.

What the court decided

Manoj Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153966

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30281 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Pratap Singh,Mohan Kant Baghel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mohan Kant Baghel, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Manoj Kashyap seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 846 of 2022, under Sections 302, 307 IPC, Police Station-Firozabad North, District-Firozabad during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 04.10.2022, a delayed FIR dated 06.10.2022 was lodged by first informant-Vishnukant (brother of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 846 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 307, 201, IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Firozabad North, DistrictFirozabad. In the aforesaid FIR, 4 persons namely - (1) Manoj Kashyap (Husband), (2) Ajay @ Vijay Kashyap (Devar), (3) Usha Devi (Mother-in-Law) and (4) Kailash (Chachiya Sasur)have been nominated as named accused.

¶10

Record shows that marriage of the applicant Manoj Kashyap was solemnized with Preeti (deceased) on 22.04.2015. However, after expiry of a period of 7 years and 5 months from the date of marriage, an unfortunate accident occurred on 04.10.2022 in which, the wife of applicant sustained burn injuries.

¶11

It is the case of the applicant that the injured was taken to the hospital on the same day by the applicant himself. The injured was under hospitalization for a period of 2 days. Ultimately, she succumbed to the injury sustained by her on 05.10.2022. The post

¶12

mortem of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death of the deceased was shock as a result of anti-mortem burn injury. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased, found following anti-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased;-

¶13

"1. Surgical dressing present all over body.

¶14

2. Catheter present in vagina, IV Cannula in Rt. palm.

¶15

3. Superficial to deep burn all over body except both sole.

¶16

4. Singing of hair.

¶17

5. Line of redness present."

¶18

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who have supported the FIR. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer converted the case under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of the statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during course of investigation and other material collected by him, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that complicity of only 2 of the named accused i.e. Manoj Kashyap (Husband) and Usha Devi (Mother-in-law of the deceased) is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly submitted the charge sheet dated 21.12.2022 whereby aforementioned 2 of the named accused have been charge sheeted wherein the other 2 named accused have been exculpated.

¶19

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. In the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings, the minor son of the applicant who is aged about 2 years has also sustained 15-20% burn injury, which fact is clearly evident from the injury report.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. submits that the injury report of the child of the applicant is part of the case diary.

¶21

It is next contended that the occurrence in question has occurred after almost 7 years and 5 months from the date of marriage of the applicant with the deceased.

¶22

On the above premise, he submits that the deceased sustained burn injury on account of an accident and not on account of deliberate act of applicant. Attention of the Court was then invited

¶23

to the FIR on basis thereof, he submits that in the FIR vague allegations have been made with regard to demand of money and commission of physical and mental cruelty upon the deceased. However, the said allegation have not been substantiated by material particulars in the FIR itself nor in the statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As such, the same is liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage. He has then invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 18 of the affidavit which discharge the burden in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. For ready reference, the same is re-produced hereinunder:-

¶24

"That it would not be out of place to mention at this stage that the unfortunate death of the deceased was entirely accidental and the happended when the deceased was working in the kitchen. At the said time, the deceased has go to kitchen for making tea and also the clean the kitchen when ever the kerosine cane has pull down on her and set fire suddenly."

¶25

It is further submitted that even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 19.10.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 9 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged against applicant necessitating custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶26

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy by this Court. Applicant is the husband of the deceased. The occurrence in question has occurred in the house of the applicant himself. Applicant being an inmate of the house, therefore, burden is upon the applicant himself to explain the manner of occurrence. The explanation offered in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application for bail is unworthy of reliance. The death of the deceased is highly unnatural inasmuch as, the deceased has sustained 90% superficial to deep burn injury on her body. It is thus contended that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶27

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned

¶28

A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of applicant, accusations made coupled with the fact that the death of the deceased i.e. wife of applicant has occurred on account of having sustained 90% superficial to deep burn injury on her body, the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings having not been sufficiently explained in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶29

As a result, the present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶30

It is accordingly rejected .

¶31

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Vinay

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Manoj Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Karunesh Sharma vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Chandra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sushil Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ganpati Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others