Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3844 of 2009 Petitioner :- Kali Charan & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Ashish Agrawal,Shiv Nath Singh,Umesh Chandra Mishra Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, Sri U.C. Mishra assisted by Sri Ashish
Agarwal,learned advocate who appeared to press bail application of Kali
Charan, Anar Devi and Awadesh Kumar who are appellants in Criminal
Appeal No. 3844 of 2009 and the learned Government Advocate.
The appellants are prosecuted for the offence punishable under section so
mentioned in the judgment and they are to serve out the sentence so provided
therein.
Submission is that it is not a case where death has taken place inside the house
rather something happened outside and in any view of the matter, initial
version that some body saw the accused persons taking the girl on a scooter is
not proved as neither anybody is named as witness nor anybody was
examined and just on mere suspicion/presumption, applicants were
proceeded.
Submission is that it is not a case where there is any lack of good faith on the
part of the appellants. The applicants informed the parent side on 4th May,
2002 itself about disappearance of the girl and it is thereafter on trace of the
body on 5th May,2002 post mortem examination was conducted and it is
thereafter on 8.5.2002, the ornaments which the lady was wearing were
returned to the appellant side and it is thereafter on 16th May,2002, report was
registered.
Submission is that so far as applicants are concerned, distinction can be said
to be there in the evidence from the case of husband as it has come in the
statement that husband demanded certain items.
Submission is that applicants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse
the liberty.
Learned Government side submits that although in respect to initial version of
some body saw the accused taking the lady on a scooter, nobody was cited as
witness and nobody was examined but as the death can be said to be in
unnatural manner, if the trial judge has believed the prosecution case, it is not
a case for grant of bail.
There is no dispute about the fact that during trial for about seven years,
applicants were on bail. The applicants no. 1,2 and 3 are father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law(dever). Husband is not before us.
To corroborate the stand/version that it was seen by the witnesses while
accused took the girl on scooter, neither any name was cited who can be said
to have seen this, nor in evidence any witness was examined and thus very
initial link can be said to be missing.
It is also not come in the evidence that these three appellants at the time of
marriage or thereafter demanded any thing. Adequate good faith was shown
by them. They immediately informed the father about disappearance and in
the presence and knowledge of parent side all proceedings proceeded. After
about 12 days report has been lodged.
Although in these kind of matters, appellant side is to explain the things but
here it is not a case where the death is a result of some kind of plea of suicide,
hanging, burn, poisoning etc. inside the house. Besides aforesaid a distinction
of husband is also there.
On the facts and detail as noted in the preceding paragraphs, as there is no
charge of misuse of bail and appeal is not so old and thus, long time is to be
taken in its hearing, this Court is of the view that appellants are entitled for
bail.
Let the appellants Kali Charan, Anar Devi and Awadesh Kumar involved in
S.T.No. 551 of 2002( State Vs.Upendra and others) be released on bail on
their each furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of Court concerned. Realisation of fine to the extent of
3/4th shall remain stayed. Balance amount of fine will be deposited forthwith,
upon release order will be executed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010
Shahid