SUNIL CHAND SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The applicant Sunil Chand Shukla s/o Pandit Luxami Narayan Shukla, resident of 57/7 H, Ramganj, P. S. Collectorganj, Kanpur (Nagar) is detained at Kanpur Jail as an accused, involved in case Crime No. 158 of 1993, under Section 304- B of the Indian Penal Code, P. S. Collec tor ganj, District Kanpur (Nagar ).

(2.) IN this bail application the learned counsel for the applicant filed a large num ber of documents relating to the case along with affidavit. The cornplainant informant is represented through Sri Tapan Ghosh be sides the learned addl. Government Advocate, Sri Shivaji Misra. Counter affidavits have been filed by the complainant inform ant as well as by Sri Anant Ram Singh, Senior Sub-INspector of P. S. Collectorganj, Kanpur (Nagar ). Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant. The case-diary has also been produced by the learned AGA. This bail application was argued at length by learned counsel for the parties. Ordinarily the practice of this Court is to decide bail applications without deal ing with facts and law involved in the case and generally the operative part about grant of bail or rejection of bail is stated in the order. Since this bail application arises out of an offence under Section 304-B IPC, and since after the addition of Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 113-Aand 113-B of the Evidence Act by the Criminal Law Second Amendment Act, 1983 (No. 46 of 1983) and Dowry Prohibition (Amend ment) Act, 1986, very often the presump tion of law as provided in the amended Sec tion now (sic) a question before the Court as to the extent of the burden on the accused applicant to rebut the provision of the presumption in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act at the stage of consideration of bail applications.

(3.) THIS provision shows that if a wife is shown to have committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of mar riage and there is evidence that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative it would be permissible for the Court to presume that such suicide was abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.