Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024ABAIL/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused in a 1995 dowry death case. Relying on the dying declaration suggesting accidental death and pending investigation status, the court granted interim bail subject to conditions and listed the matter for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Interim liberty granted until next listing; applicant to surrender forthwith on arrest or within 15 days by furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1714

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Apoorv Dev Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and charge-sheet in this case has been filed on 14.08.1998.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu for anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0299 of 1995, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. FIR of this case has been lodged by grandmother of wife of the applicant on 26.08.1995 pertaining to the incident allegedly occurred on 01.08.1995 against the applicant and his family members, alleging that the applicant and his family members were treating the deceased with cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry and, on the relevant day, they had poured kerosene-oil on her and put her on fire and, during her treatment in the hospital she died. The postmortem report of the deceased would reveal that she had sustained burn injuries and died of septicemia on 18.08.1995. While drawing the attention of this Court towards the dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 02.08.1995 by the Naib Tehsildar, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-3 (page 36 onward of the paperbook), it is submitted that the deceased in her dying declaration has categorically stated that on the relevant day she was cooking food and accidentally caught fire whereby she sustained burn injuries and at that point of time the applicant was outside the house with their daughter - Laxmi and she was also attempted to be saved by her brother-in-law (Devar) and

¶11

was taken to the hospital by the applicant.

¶12

Highlighting the above, it is vehemently submitted that occurring of death other than in normal circumstance is the main ingredient of the offence under Section 304-B IPC and the death occurred accidentally, without there being any requisite intention, may not fall therein and when the deceased, in her dying-declaration, has not alleged any allegation against the applicant, it appears that the FIR has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion and apprehension. It is further submitted that thorough investigation of the case was made and for 3 years no evidence/material was found on the basis of which the applicant may be charge-sheeted. It was under the pressure applied by the informant, the charge-sheet has been submitted without there being any basis or evidence. It is also submitted that since the submission of charge-sheet the applicant has not received any process of the Court which is evident from questionnaire obtained, copy of which has been placed as Annexure-23 to the bail application (page 94 onward of the paper-book) and after submission of charge-sheet no process of any kind was received by the applicant and when bailable warrants were issued against him, he came to know about the pendency of instant case. The applicant is intending to appear before the trial Court for the purpose of participation in the trial. He has also cooperated in the investigation and an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.08.1998, protecting the liberty of the applicant when he along with others had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2471 (M/B) of 1998.

¶13

It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar alias Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Anuj Kumar alias Anuj Kumar Shukla, who are father-inlaw and brother-in-law (Sasur and Devar) of the deceased, have been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 01.12.2023 and 18.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC Nos. 2749 of 2023 and 2912 of 2023 respectively, copies of which have been placed as Annexure Nos. 23 and 24 to the bail application.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that after happening of the unfortunate incident the deceased at once admitted in the hospital by the applicant and her statement was recorded by the Naib-Tehsildar and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, that statement appears to be covered within the definition given under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same may safely be treated as dying-declaration. The deceased in her dying declaration has not imputed any allegation against the applicant, rather she

¶15

stated that while she was cooking food she accidentally caught fire and at that point of time the applicant was playing with their daughter outside the house and her brother-in-law (Devar) attempted to save her by pouring water on her. A questionnaire obtained from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur would demonstrate that till now neither non-bailable-warrant nor any proclamation for declaration of proclaimed offender has been issued against the applicant. The death of deceased appears to have been caused, as per postmortem report, due to septicemia on account of burn injuries. The applicant is not having any criminal history. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar alias Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Anuj Kumar alias Anuj Kumar Shukla, who are father-inlaw and brother-in-law (Sasur and Devar) of the deceased, have been granted facility of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Thus, considering all the fact and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, while providing an opportunity of being heard to the opposite party no. 2/informant, the liberty of the applicant may be protected till the next date of listing.

¶17

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2/informant on taking appropriate steps by applicant within 3 days from today, returnable by the next date of listing.

¶18

Let this matter be listed on 25.01.2024 .

¶19

Till the next date of listing, if applicant - Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu is arrested under any process of the trial Court or on his appearance before the trial court within 15 days from today i.e. 23.01.2024, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 15 days from today i.e. 23.01.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶21

(ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation, the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.

¶22

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime

¶23

during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶24

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶25

(v). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶26

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶28

This application may be disposed of finally on the next date of listing.

¶29

The State, if so wishes, may bring on record objection/counter affidavit till the next date of listing.

¶30

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 MVS/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Janki Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P and Anr.