ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Pawankumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Arvind Kumar seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 697 of 2019, under Sections 452, 376, 328, 306 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Powayan, District-Shahjahanpur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident is dated 21.09.2019 but the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Shri Krishna on 25.09.2019 which is highly belated, but for delay there is no plausible explanation. As per the F.I.R. version the applicant made physical relationship with the daughter of the informant on the basis of false promise regarding marriage and when the daughter started pressurizing the applicant for marriage, on the date of the incident, the applicant along with Ramjane entered the house of the informant from back door and after committing wrong act administered poisonous substance to the daughter. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the post mortem report cause of death could not be ascertained and hence viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. According to the report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala poison was found in viscera. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he did not administer any poison to the daughter of the informant and the entire story is highly improbable. He submits that in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Annexure No. 4., he stated that on refusal of marriage by the applicant, it is possible that the daughter of the informant might have herself taken the poisonous substance. The independent witnesses Awadhesh, Hetram and Shri Krishna s/o Chunnilal in their respective statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have also stated that the daughter of the informant wanted to marry the applicant but when the applicant denied to perform marriage then she consumed poison herself. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was ready to marry the daughter of the informant but the informant and his family was not prepared for that. There was love affair between the applicant and the deceased daughter of the informant which was not acceptable to the informant and consequentially the applicant has been falsely implicated in the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that physical relationship on the promise of marriage and breach of that promise in all the case will not amount to offence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2019 and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate during trial and will also not tamper with the evidence. The applicant undertakes not to pressurize the witnesses. The applicant has no criminal history as mentioned in paragraph no. 25 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.