Ram Chandra Yadav vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—A.G.A. has filed counter-affidavit, whereas applicant''s Counsel has filed supplementary-affidavit, which are taken on record.

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Rai, advocate, appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State.

The applicant Ram Chandra Yadav is the husband of deceased Smt. Savita Devi, whose murder was committed within a period of seven years of her marriage. Her grand-father Shambhu Yadav, lodged an F.I.R., on 21.6.2008, at P.S. Rani-ki-Sarai, district Azamgarh, where a case at Crime No. 658 of 2008, under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act, was registered against Ram Chandra Yadav (applicant herein), Harkhu and Smt. Johra Devi. The allegations made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that the accused persons were causing harassment of the deceased making demand of dowry and when their demand was not fulfilled, they committed her murder.

The first and foremost submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that the complainant Shambhu Yadav has been examined in trial Court in S.T. No. 57 of 2008, but he has not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. For this submission, my attention has been drawn towards statement of the complainant Shambhu Yadav, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-S.A. 1 with supplementary-affidavit dated 13.7.2009, in which he has stated that the accused persons were not making any demand of dowry from her grand-daughter Savita and she was not being harassed by the accused persons.

Next submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that murder of deceased was committed by some unknown persons, for which the applicant cannot be held liable and hence he is entitled to be released on bail on this ground alone.

It is also submitted that on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as due to delay in trial, his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.

Next submission made by learned Counsel is that there is no evidence to show that murder of deceased was committed by the applicant and hence on this ground also, he should be released on bail, because other members of the family were also living in the same house with the applicant and hence it cannot be presumed that the applicant alone had committed the murder of deceased.

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. contending that murder of deceased was committed in the house of applicant and since he has not furnished any explanation as to how the murder of his wife was committed in his house, hence in view of the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the applicant will be held liable for committing the murder of his wife and hence in this heinous crime, he should not be released on bail.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. The post-mortem report (Annexure-2) shows that two ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination and the deceased had died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem mugging. In the affidavit which has been filed in support of the bail application, the applicant has not furnished any satisfactory explanation about the murder of his wife in his house. Although the dead body of deceased was found lying on her bed in the house of applicant, as admitted in Para 10 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application, but the applicant did not lodge any F.I.R. about committing the murder of his wife. Therefore, having regard to all these facts, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, in this heinous crime of taking away the life of his wife, the applicant does not deserve bail.

In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be released on bail. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. (LXIII)2008 ACC 115 : 2008 (3) ACR 3216 in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.

The trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused persons within a period of six months making sincere efforts and applying the provisions of Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure.

S.S.P., Azamgarh is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of rest witnesses after obtaining their summons from the Court concerned and it must be ensured that all the rest witnesses are produced in Session Trial No. 57 of 2008 without causing any delay.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial Court concerned and S.S.P., Azamgarh for necessary action.