LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-8

NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 01, 2016
NARESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and as the deceased did not have any issue, she developed mental frustration and used to remain in mental depression as a result of which she committed suicide. Further submission is that even after the occurrence she was rushed to the hospital to give her medical succour but by that time, she had already died. It has further been submitted that thereafter inquest proceedings took place and the parents of the deceased were duly informed about the incident, who arrived on the information. Attention of the Court was drawn to the inquest report in which the first informant Jai Ram himself is one of the witnesses of the inquest and the applicant is also one of the witnesses of the inquest. Submission is that the applicant never ill-treated his wife nor ever demanded any dowry and, therefore, the complainant had not made any complaint against the applicant and his family members. Further submission is that though the police officers were very much present at the time of inquest but the first informant never made any complaint against the applicant though he was present all along. Subsequently, an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in this regard was moved on 9.12.2013 while the incident in question is said to have taken place on 24.10.2013. Argument is that had there been any truth in the allegations made against the applicant about demanding of dowry and committing cruelty upon the deceased, then there is absolutely no explanation as to why and under what circumstances the first informant could not lodge the F.I.R. against the applicant for such a long period of time. Contention is that actually it appears on the face of the record that the F.I.R. is the result of confabulation and afterthought and only to blackmail the applicant. The bonafide post incident conduct of applicant in informing the parents, taking the wife to hospital, remaining present all throughout and not absconding from the scene of occurrence are some of the significant circumstances which are pointing towards his innocence. Such bonafide conduct when juxta-posed with the post incident conduct of the first informant inasmuch as he simply did not make even a whisper of grievance or complaint against accused, when looked and taken together become conclusive circumstances which run counter to the insinuating charge that has been flung against applicant. Much emphasis was also laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than two years in jail and he is behind the bars since 3.6.2014 having no criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.