Sudhir Singh vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Prayer for bail in this bail application has been made on behalf of the applicant Sudhir Singh s/o Chandra Bali Singh, who is facing trial in S. T. No. 213 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2007 under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act P. S. Tarwa, district Azamgarh. The said session trial is pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Azamgarh.

The applicant is the husband of deceased Smt. Neetu, who died within seven, years of her marriage due to burn injuries in the house of the applicant. An F.I.R. was lodged by Om Prakash Singh (father of the deceased) on 20.1.2007 at P. S. Tarwa (Azamgarh), where a case under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act was registered against Sudhir Singh, Sanjay Singh, Kanchan Devi and Shashi Devi.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the allegations made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that marriage of Smt. Neetu had taken place with the accused Sudhir Singh (applicant herein) on 28.5.2006, in which demand of Rs. 50,000 and motorcycle was made, which were given by the complainant. It is also alleged that husband and other in-laws of Smt. Neetu were not satisfied with dowry and started to cause her harassment making demand of colour TV and Rs. 50,000 more. Further case of the prosecution is that when demand of accused persons was not fulfilled, they committed murder of Smt. Neetu by burning her.

According to the post mortem report (Annexure 2), the deceased Smt. Neetu Singh had died due to shock caused by ante-mortem burn injuries.

I have heard arguments of Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodia, advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State.

The main submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant was that the deceased had committed suicide and since the applicant is not responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased, hence he deserves bail. It was also submitted in this context that the deceased was never harassed making any demand of dowry and false report was lodged by the complainant.

It was further submitted by learned Counsel that during the course of trial, the complainant Om Prakash Singh has been examined in S.T. No. 213 of 2007, but he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution and one witness namely Rana Singh also has been examined in trial court and he also has not supported prosecution case and hence on this ground, the applicant deserves bail now, because the main witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the statements of the witnesses Om Prakash Singh and Rana Singh (Annexure-SA-A and SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit).

Last submission was that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.2.2007 and hence on the basis of long incarceration in jail, he 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.

The bail application was opposed by learned A.G.A. contending that two more witnesses also have been examined in trial court, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. This fact was not disputed by learned Counsel for applicant also.

I have carefully gone through the statement of the complainant Om Prakash Singh, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 11.12.2008. In his examination-in-chief, the witness has fully supported the case of prosecution and he has stated that husband and in-laws of her daughter Neetu Singh were causing harassment to her making demand of colour TV and Rs. 50,000. Although in cross-examination of 21.1.2008, the witness has stated that her daughter was happy in her sasural and she never made any complaint against her in-laws and her husband about making demand of dowry, but this Court cannot record any finding about the evidentiary value of the statement of witness Om Prakash Singh. Therefore, on the basis of the statement of Om Prakash Singh, the applicant cannot be released on bail in this heinous anti-social crime. It is worthwhile to mention that two other witnesses are said to have supported the case of prosecution. Although copy of the statements of those witnesses have not been brought on record by the applicant, but it was conceded at the time of argument by learned Counsel for the applicant that two more witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, who have supported the F.I.R. version. Second witness Rana Singh, whose statement (Annexure SA-2) has been filed in support of the bail application, was mediator of the marriage. This Court cannot record any finding regarding evidentiary value of the statement of this witness also.

Admittedly the deceased had died due to burn injuries. Her marriage with the applicant had taken place on 28.5.2006 and within eight months of her marriage, she died due to burn injuries. Suicidal death is also covered u/s 304B, I.P.C., if other conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. There is allegation in the F.I.R. as well as in examination-in-chief of the complainant Om Prakash Singh that the deceased was being harassed making demand of colour TV and Rs. 50,000 by her husband and in-laws. It is for the trial court to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, who have been examined in S. T. No. 213 of 2007 and this Court cannot express any opinion about evidentiary value of the statements of these witnesses. Therefore, merely on the basis of cross-examination of the witness Om Prakash Singh, the applicant cannot be released on bail.

In my considered opinion, on the basis of the long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous anti-social crime In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others (LXIII) 2008 ACC 115: 2008 (3) ACR 3216 (SC), 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.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the bail application of the applicant Sudhir Singh is hereby rejected.

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months applying the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.