- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. This is the first bail application moved on behalf of applicant Anand Swaroop Sharma son of Sukkhan Lal Sharma in Case Crime No. 167 of 1997, under Sections 304-B/201, IPC, Police Station Parikshat Garh, District Meerut.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as learned A. G. A. I have also perused the whole records. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the First Information Report was lodged with a delay of twenty-six days of the alleged occurrence and no sufficient explanation has been given on behalf of the prosecution. After, investigation, the case was found false and, therefore, the Investigating Officer submitted final report on 4-9-2006. Thereafter a protest petition was filed by the complainant upon which further investigation was made and the false charge-sheet has been filed. It is further contended that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Suman. The deceased died due to bite of poisonous reptile Chandan Gojh and she was given all possible medical treatment by doctor and Vaid. The statements of said doctor and Vaid have been recorded by the Investigating Officer where after the final report was submitted. It is further contended that the deceased had expired on 26/27-8- 1997 in the night. The present applicant and complainant, who is father of the deceased, both were serving in same institution of Nehru Memorial Inter College, Chitwana, Meerut. A condolence meeting was convened in the said institution on 27-8-1997. Therefore, this fact had already come in the knowledge of the complainant regarding the death of his daughter. However, the First Information Report reveals that the factum of death of deceased had come firstly in the knowledge of complainant on 19-9-1997 when he received a letter of the deceased. This is also not reliable. It is further contended that the bail application of co-accused Manoj. Who is husband of the deceased had been rejected by this Court. The case of applicant is distinguishable from her husband. It is further contended that there is general allegation against all the accused and no specific role has been assigned against the present applicant, being the father-in-law of the deceased. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as learned A. G. A. has urged that this incident had allegedly taken place in the night of 26/27-8-1997. The information regarding the death of deceased, who was the daughter of the first informant, was not given to her parents and she was cremated for the of disappearance of the evidence. It is further contended that no information was also given to the concerned police station regarding her death. The Investigating Officer had colluded with the accused. Therefore, he collected the defence evidence and on that basis, submitted the final report against the accused. Thereafter the final report was rejected upon a protest petition filed on behalf of the first informant, which was challenged on behalf of the accused persons by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 195 of 1998. The said revision was dismissed as the case was found proved by the Investigating Officer against all the accused persons. It is further contended that the High Court has given time to surrender in Court on 25-5-2006 but he had not surrendered. Later on he had surrendered in the case. It is further contended that the bail applications of other co-accused persons, namely Smt. Maya (mother-in-law), Vipin Kumar (Devar), Smt. Meenakshi (Nanad) and Sanjauy (Nandoya) have been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. Now, application for bail cancellation has been moved by the complainant in this Court which is still pending. It is further contended that the bail application of the husband of deceased had already been rejected by this Court. It is further contended that the first informant was on leave when the condolence meeting was convened in his college. Therefore, this fact had not come in his knowledge. It has come firstly after receiving the letter of his daughter on 19-9-1997. In such circumstances, the bail application is liable to be rejected.
(3.) THERE is general allegation against all the five accused persons including the present applicant. . The First Information Report has been lodged against her husband, mother and father-in- laws, Devar, Nanad and Nandoya. THERE is no dying declaration in this case. Husband is the custodian of his wife and he is fully responsible for providing all affairs, including the protection of saving her life. The bail applications of other accused, who are mother-in-law and father- in-law, Devar, Nanad and Nandoya have already been allowed by the Sessions Judge. The case of the present applicant, who is father-in- law, is also distinguishable from the case of the husband of deceased. THEREfore, this bail application is liable to be allowed. Consequently, this bail application is allowed. Let applicant Anand Swaroop Sharma, involved in Case Crime No. 167 of 1997, under Sections 304-B/201, IPC, P. S. Parikshat Garh, District Meerut, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Bail application allowed. .;