Court allowed second bail petition for applicant accused of murdering his wife. Granted bail noting three-day FIR delay despite sole eye-witness and applicant's prior rejection of bail after three years of custody.
Bail allowed by furnishing personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to standard conditions.
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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5966 of 2022
Applicant :- Kamal Singh @ Karan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18852 of 2020 has been rejected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Gupta, vide order dated 20.10.2020.
Vide order dated 27.04.2022 passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, bail applications which are filed subsequent to such bail applications, which were decided two years before shall be listed before regular Court dealing with the matter as per roster. Accordingly the instant bail application is before this Court.
According to the F.I.R. the first informant namely, Shivendra Singh and his brother Dharmendra Singh had solemnised marriage of his sister namely, Shivanshi Singh alias Mala with Kamal Singh alias Karan son of Manu Deo Singh on 05th July, 2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals and in the marriage about Rs. 5 lacs were spend but the in-laws were not satisfied with the quantum of dowry and they started tormenting her physically and mentally. The applicant, his brother Pankaj, Neeraj, Ambuj and sister of the applicant, namely, Sarika with a common intention used to beat and tortured her, which was told him by the deceased on number of times for additional demand of Alto car, failing which, they threatened to kill. On 22.09.2019 the applicant went to in-laws along with his wife (deceased), the first informant brothers had gone to Village
Dhani Nagla, his wife had gone to her parental house, whereas, his mother Shail Kumari had gone to her sister's house at Amritpur and in the house his niece (Bhanji) namely, Viashnavi alias Mithi aged about 8 years was all alone in the house, there was no one in the house, except the applicant, his wife (informant sister) and Vaishnavi alias Mithi and taking advantage of the same, the applicant had committed murder of his sister. When his mother came, she saw that Shivanshi (deceased) was found dead.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and that the applicant belongs to Jhanghare Thakur caste. The applicant and the deceased have solemnised love marriage against the wishes of the first informant family later on, when things became normal, the applicant was invited to his family, pursuant to which, the applicant along with his wife went to his in-laws house. Learned counsel further submits that apart from the prosecution version, the informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was in Ghaziabad on the day of incident and his had mother informed her about the death of his sister, whereas, during the trial, he has stated that on the day of incident, he was in house situated at village. He further stated that on 22.09.2029 his sister has been murdered and his niece (Bhanji) namely, Vaishnavi alias Meethi aged about 8 years was present, who saw that his Mausa-applicant was quarrelling with the deceased and was pressing the neck, thereafter, the applicant (Mausa) had scolded her due to which she went out. Learned counsel has argued that the sole eye-witness Vaishnavi alias Meethi has not been arrayed as a charge sheet witness, which itself belies the prosecution story. Learned counsel has next argued that when the incident was witnessed by the Vaishnavi alias Meethi about the murder, which was intimated to the
informant, even the prompt F.I.R. has not been lodged whereas, the distance from the place of occurrence to the police station is hardly 300-350 meters irrespective of the fact, that the applicant was present during the inquest proceedings as well as post mortem examination. He also argued that some conspiracy has been hatched against the applicant on account of the fact, that the deceased had solemnised marriage with the applicant, who belongs of Jhanghare Thakur caste, against the wishes of her family member and it appears that it is a case of honour killing, in which the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2019 having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the sole eye-witness namely, Vaishnavi @ Meethi has not been examined as a witness.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Perusal of the record shows that the incident had taken place on 22.09.2019 whereas F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.09.2019, which is delayed by three days inspite of the fact, that the niece (Bhanji) namely, Vaishnavi alias Meethi was the sole eyewitness of the incident and the mother of the informant had
intimated the informant about the incident, inspite of the same no prompt F.I.R. has been lodged. Furthermore, Vaishnavi @ Meethi has neither been interrogated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor she appeared before the Court for adducing her testimony. There is contradiction in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as while adducing his testimony as P.W.1 and that the applicant is languishing in jail since last more than three years and considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Kamal Singh @ Karan involved in Case Crime No.232 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 304-B, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Allahganj, District Shahjahanpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the
commission of he is suspected.
E. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.1.2023 S.Ali
Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case for enlargement on bail despite being in custody for over three years.
Whether the delay in FIR lodging and failure to examine the sole eye-witness impacts the bail decision.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kamal Singh @ Karan
Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
