Dismissed¶29

Sachin Tyagi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2023BAIL/9228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail rejection; repeat/second bail application; Sachin Tyagi; Case Crime No. 506 of 2017; Sections 498A, 304B IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act; dowry death; burn injuries; dying declaration; P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut; custody since 6.5.2018; over four years ten months incarceration; trial not concluded within six-month direction in order dated 22.1.2019; directory versus mandatory timeline; charge-sheet dated 25.6.2018; cognizance dated 22.9.2018; Rajeev Misra, J.; order dated 13.3.2023; bail application rejected.

What did the court decide?

No new or good ground exists to enlarge the applicant on bail, notwithstanding that he had undergone more than four years and ten months of incarceration and that the trial had not concluded within the six-month period directed by this Court's earlier order dated 22.1.2019. ¶27

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

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9228 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sachin Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Radhey Shyam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This repeat application for bail has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated 22.1.2019. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:

¶9

"Heard Mr. Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin Tyagi, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of applicant namely Kunnu Tyagi was solemnized with Shanu Tyagi in November, 2014. Initially the said marriage was solemnized as a Court marriage but thereafter the marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of two years and eleven months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.10.2017, in which Shanu Tyagi, the wife of the brother of the applicant sustained superficial and deep burn injuries. It is the case of the present applicant that immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim was rushed to the C.H.C. Hospital, Kharkhoda from where she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Accordingly, the victim was got admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 11.10.2017. While the victim was undergoing treatment at the

¶12

aforesaid hospital, her dying declaration was recorded on 13.10.2017, which is at page 38 of the paper book. In the aforesaid dying declaration, the victim has implicated the family members of her in-laws in the commission of alleged crime.

¶13

The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 12.10.2017 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 506 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Kali Charan Tyagi (father-in-law), Kunti Devi (mother-in-law), Sachin Tyagi (Jeth), Antim Tyagi (Jethani) Archana (Nand) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The victim succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.10.2017 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.10.2017 itself. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was 70 % deep thermal burn with perineal burn. The injuries found on the body of the deceased has been described by the Doctor as follows:-

¶14

"Alleged UH/o thermal burns sustained at home when her in laws poured kerosene over her and lit fire and fire was doused by husband using water no H/0 LOC/seizures ENT bleed/fall

¶15

No H/o Past medical illness married three years son 1 and 1/2 years old LMP 1 and 1/2 years back lactating O/E GC critical conscious, oriented P 120 Min CVS S1 S2 present.

¶16

BP 100/70 mm

¶17

B.P 100/70 mm RR-22/mint smell of kerosene present dehydradion int. 70 % burn deep thermal burns with perineal burn as pr chart patient was admitted to BICU i a critical condition IV fluids and IV antibiotics were given regular dressings were done PC, ICU eye call were done and advice followed. However, patient's condition remained critical patient had spikes of fever patient develped cardiac arrest on 23.10.2017 (PR was given but patient could not be revived. Patient is declared dead on 23.10.2017 at 8:30 PM)"

¶18

Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 25.6.2018 against three of the named accused under section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Two of the named accused namely, Antim Tyagi and Archana (nand) of the deceased have been excluded. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018 has neither been disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been detailed by the learned counsel for the applicant, at the time of hearing of the present bail application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 6.5.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is thus submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2017 which have been brought by means of a supplementary affidavit filed today. Prior to the recording of the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration of the victim has already been recorded on 13.10.2017. There is clear contradiction in the dying declaration as well as the statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. as per the dying declaration/statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be probable. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased was a young lady aged about 25 years and she had died at her matrimonial home just after two years and eleven months of her marriage. The deceased had died on account of burn injuries sustained by her. As such, the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. Rebutting the statement urged by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased has clearly implicated the present applicant in the criminality, giving rise to the present applicant for bail. There is nothing on the record to dislodge the testimony of the victim herself in terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶21

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicants stands rejected.

¶22

However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight. "

¶24

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 6.5.2018. As such, he has undergone more than four years

¶25

and ten months of incarceration. He has then invited the attention of Court to the order dated 22.1.2019 and on basis of thereof he submits that inspite of the clear direction issued by this Court to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months, the trial has not yet concluded. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that the deceased has nominated the applicant as an active accused in her dying declaration. According to learned A.G.A., the observations made in the order dated 22.1.2019 are simply directory in nature and nor compliance thereof by Court below will not automatically result in enlargement of applicant on bail. Applicant is guilty of committing a heinous crime. As such, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶28

AS a result, present application fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶29

It is accordingly rejected.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.3.2023

¶31

Arshad

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin Tyagi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Tyagi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kishore Vs State of U.P.

Rishi Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hcp Shailendra Pratap Shah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu @ Narendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another