Sani Yadav v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39775 of 2023 Applicant :- Sani Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Narayan Shukla,Saumitra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Yogesh Narayan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶2Perused the record.

¶3This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sani Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 417 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Sasni Gate, District-Aligarh during the pendency of trial.

¶4Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 20.08.2022, a prompt FIR dated 20.08.2022 was lodged by first informant-Ranveer Singh Yadav (father of the deceased) and was registered asCase Crime No. 417 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Sasni Gate, District-Aligarh. In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely - (1) Sani Yadav (husband), (2) Dharmraj Yadav (Father-in-law) and (3) Rajrani (Mother-in-law) of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.

¶5The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that marriage of Dolly @ Madhuri (daughter of the first informant) was solemnized with Sani Yadav i.e. applicant herein on

27.11.2020/30.11.2021. At the time of marriage, sufficient amount of goods and dowry were given. However, in spite of above, demand of additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs and a 4 wheeler car was raised. As the additional demand of dowry and a 4 wheeler car was not fulfilled, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon the deceased. Ultimately, the daughter of first informant was put to death.

¶6After above-mentioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. The inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was categorized as suicidal and the cause of death of deceased was said to be ante-mortem hanging. Thereafter, the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, opined that the cause of death of deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:- "Ante-mortem Injuries not seen on her body except a ligature mark on neck region. Ligature mark : length of ligature mark is 22 cm width 1 ch, gap in ligature mark's 8 cm on back of neck. Distance of ligature mark from Rt. ear is 4 cm from Lt. ears, 5.5. cm & chin is 5 cm Meets circumferance is 32 cm On cut section trachea is clear. Hyoid is intact is not impression is visible on Lt. side under lined soft tissue. Ligature mark is horizontal continuous and below thyroid. Hands are cleaned. Ligature mark is deep in nature."

¶8During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses so examined have supported the FIR. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of all the named accused is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 28.10.2022 whereby all the named accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶9Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Much emphasis was laid on the post mortem report of the deceased in support of the submission that except for the ligature mark, no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of deceased.

¶10Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 07.10.2022. As such, he has undergone almost 1 year and 1/2 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. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits 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.

¶11Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named/charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 27.11.2020/30.11.2021. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred on 20.08.2022 i.e. even before expiry of 2 years from the date of marriage. As such, the death of the deceased is a dowry death. As per the medical opinion, the death of deceased is homicidal and the cause of death of deceased is strangulation. As such, the death of deceased was caused by a deliberate act. Applicant is an inmate of the house and also the husband of the deceased, therefore, the burden is upon the applicant to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. It is thus contended that no sympathy be dhown by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶12When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶13Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred prior to 7 years of marriage, therefore, the death of deceased is a dowry death, the applicant is an inmate of the house and also the husband of deceased, therefore, by reason of above, the burden is upon the applicant to not only explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act, however, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage, as per the medical opinion, the cause of death of deceased is ante-mortem strangulation which clearly denote that there was a deliberate act performed to cause the death of deceased on account of medical opinion, there is possibility of awarding the maximum sentence under Section 304-B IPC, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant 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 or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶14As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶15It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 28.10.2023 Vinay High Court of Judicature at Allahabad