KAMLESH KUMAR SONKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

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 but he has not at all contributed in the incident which took place as a result of consuming poison 'Aluminium Phosphide'. Further submission is that at the time of occurrence the applicant was far away at the place of his employment in Goa. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court in this regard to annexure no. 11 and 12. Some material was also collected by the investigating officer affirming the applicant's presence in Goa during the occurrence hundreds of miles away from the place of occurrence. It was further pointed out that the deceased lived separately in a different house and information about the death of the deceased was given by the brother of the applicant to the police after discovering her dead lying in the house and it was on this information furnished by the brother of the applicant that the police reached at the place of occurrence and inquest proceeding was done and subsequently it was found that she had died after consuming poison. It has further been pointed out that the post mortem report would indicate no mark of violence on her body. Submission is that it is so obvious that the deceased died either accidentally or deliberately consuming the poison and she was not subjected to any kind of violence by anybody before her death. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the fact that in the inquest proceeding the real brother of the deceased was one of the witnesses of panchnama which took place on 28.7.2014 on the very next day of the occurrence, yet surprisingly enough the first information report was lodged by the same brother of the deceased on 3.8.2014 after several days of the occurrence. Submission is that had there been any truth in the allegation made against the applicant with regard to demand of dowry and ill-treating the deceased, then there is no explanation as to how and under what circumstances the F.I.R. would still not be lodged till so many days after the occurrence even though the first informant is the brother of the deceased and he himself was a party of the inquest report and was having ample opportunity to report the matter to the police, people who were present on the spot. Submission is that actually there was nothing to complain against the applicant for several days and it was only after a lot of confabulations and concert that the present F.I.R. has been lodged with false allegations. It was also submitted that the marriage took place just two months back and soon thereafter, the applicant went to join his place of employment and the wife felt badly indignited with this act of the applicant, who was having expectation that she would be taken along by the applicant to the place of employment. Submission is that the deceased was a sensitive lady and out of frenzied outburst of emotions, she appears to have committed suicide. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than a year in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 12.3.2015 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.