Dismissed

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024/103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application of a husband accused in his wife's dowry death case. The applicant's claim that she died falling from a bus was earlier falsified by investigation showing the alleged bus did not ply that day. Unable to explain her nine ante-mortem injuries and with no fresh grounds, the court rejected bail again and directed expedited trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to expedite and conclude trial within six months.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20823

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 103 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this second bail application in case crime No.321 of 2020 under sections 498(A), 304-B I.P.C., 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Aalapur, district Ambedkar Nagar, the first having been rejected vide order dated 13.9.2022 passed in Bail Application No 6552 of 2021, and perused the record.

¶7

2. The order dated 13.9.2022 (supra) is extracted below :

¶8

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.321 of 2020, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

Accused-applicant is husband of the deceased, Savita Yadav with whom he performed marriage on 14.12.2019. After marriage, the deceased was living with the accused-applicant in Delhi. It is said that soon after she reached Delhi, the accused-applicant and other accused started torturing, harassing the deceased and pressurized her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry, otherwise they would not leave her alive. When the deceased informed about this fact to her parents, the complainant, father of the deceased, reached Delhi and told the accused-applicant and other accused that he was not financially strong enough to fulfill the additional dowry demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the complainant said that he will try to do something whichever would be possible. Accused-applicant and other accused said that they should be given at least Tractor and Trolley and, thereafter, they would decide that what more had to be given or not. The complainant brought Tractor bearing No.UP50 AS 3005, which was standing in the agency because of non-payment of the loan, and gave it to the accused-applicant along with trolley.

¶11

The accused-applicant and other accused did not stop torturing and harassing the deceased, and they again started demanding additional dowry. The complainant had a building material shop, which he sold for Rs.5,23,000/- and again he gave Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused. Thereafter, he brought back his daughter to Ambedkar Nagar. One week thereafter, husband and father-in-law of the deceased came to the house of the complainant and said that the Tractor was old one and he should give Rs.3,00,000/-, to which the complainant said that he did not have anything to give them. Accused-applicant and other accused said that they were taking the deceased with them. The deceased was sent with the accused.

¶12

On 10.9.2020, the deceased made a telephone call to her parents and told them that they should come and bring her back, otherwise, she would not be alive. The complainant told her that he would come within a week after making

¶13

arrangements. The deceased had seven months old son from the wedlock. The complainant got information that his daughter had met with an accident and died as a result thereof. The complainant reached Delhi, where he met the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased and they said that when the deceased was going with her husband to Gonda, she died near Etawah, Police Station Chaubiya in a bus accident. The complainant asked whether they had lodged any report regarding the incident, and how was the child. He was informed that the deceased was going alone. The complainant came to the police station, where the alleged accident took place, and he came to know that on the basis of information only post-morem of the deceased was conducted and no information was given at the police station. The complainant believed that the accused-applicant and other accused had killed the deceased for dowry and after post-mortem, she was cremated.

¶14

This Court considering the submission of the learned counsel for the accusedapplicant that bus met with an accident, in which the deceased was travelling, passed the following order on 11.4.2022:-

¶15

"The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in FIR No. 321 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while travelling from a bus from Delhi to Ambedkar Nagar the deceased felt uneasy as she was having vomiting sensation. The accused-applicant asked the conductor to stop the bus. The conductor said that he could not stop the bus but the accused applicant should open the door of the bus and make her vomiting sitting from there. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant opened the door and when the deceased was vomiting from her seat, she fell down from the moving bus. She was taken to the hospital where she was declared brought dead.

¶17

This Court put a specific query to the learned counsel appearing for the State that whether Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of the bus driver, conductor or any fellow passenger, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the police has not investigated this aspect of the matter at all.

¶18

Let the Investigating Officer explain that when the deceased had died on account of falling from a bus, why he has not taken the statements of the conductor, driver or any of the other passengers regarding the incident.

¶19

List this case 1. after two weeks on 25.04.2022.

¶20

The Investigating Officer shall remain present before the Court on the next date.

¶21

Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I is directed to communicate this order to the Investigating Officer concerned for his appearance before the Court.?

¶22

In compliance of the order dated 11.4.2022, on the next date of listing of the bail application i.e. 25.4.2022, the Investigating Officer/Circle Officer, Jagdishlal Tamta was present. This Court noted that the Circle Officer had sent his comments to the bail application, but there was no comment with respect to the assertion of the accused-applicant that he along with deceased wife and minor son were coming to his Village, Tilai Ka Purwa through Volvo Bus bearing registration no.UP72 A 5399, which was plying from Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, Delhi to Azamgarh and the said bus met with an accident, as a result thereof, the deceased died.

¶23

The Investigating Officer, who was present in the Court, assured this Court that he would investigate the said aspect of the matter by taking statements of the bus driver and the conductor, who were on duty in the said bus on the date of incident.

¶24

In pursuance to the assurance given by the Investigating Officer, Jagdishlal Tamta, before this Court on 25.4.2022, an affidavit has been filed by him on

¶25

27.6.2022. Along with the affidavit, statements of the owner of the bus, driver and the conductor have been annexed. As per the statements given by the owner, driver and the conductor, the said bus i.e. UP72 A 5399 did not ply on the date of accident/incident. The owner of the bus said that due to pandemic COVID-19, bus did not ply in the whole month of September, 2020. This fact also got proved from the print report of the Toll Plaza situated at Delhi-Lucknow National Highway that Bus No.UP72 A 5399 did not come to Azamgarh from 10.9.2020 to 15.9.2020.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid facts and the statements of the owner, driver and the conductor of the bus, in which allegedly the accused-applicant was travelling along with his deceased wife and minor son, the assertion made by the accusedapplicant gets falsified, and the sand of the accused-applicant that the deceased died in an accident is not believable. Accused-applicant is husband of the deceased and the deceased had died in suspicious circumstances on 13.9.2020, therefore, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶27

Bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶28

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same within a period of one year."

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that three prosecution witnesses have been examined. There is delay in the trial. The applicant is in jail since 27.12.2020. He has no criminal history.

¶30

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased was the wife of the applicant. Story set up by the applicant has been found false during investigation as the alleged bus No.UP72 A 5399 did not ply on the date of the accident/incident as stated by the applicant while rejecting the first bail application. This Court has also noted this aspect of the matter. The deceased received nine ante mortem injuries upon her person. The applicant being the husband has onus to explain as to how those injuries were received by the deceased. It is a heinous offence and no case for bail is made out.

¶31

5. I have considered the submission.

¶32

Learned counsel for the applicant could not explain the injuries received by the deceased. Except the period of incarceration and the fact that two prosecution witnesses have been examined, no further fresh ground has been taken by the

¶33

applicant.

¶34

6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the ante mortem injuries received by the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶35

7. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶36

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶37

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 kkb/

¶38

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Danish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Gov. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Ritik Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Others