# Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 386
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-31
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-jyoti-v-state-of-u-p-44261
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Bail application - Case Crime No.167 of 2013 - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3⁄4
D.P. Act - Husband of the deceased - Burn injuries - Delay in lodging the F.I.R. - Medical treatment -
Inquest proceedings - Period of detention - Unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial - Bail granted

This bail application has been moved seeking the release of applicant on bail in connection with Case Crime
No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Raipurwa, DistrictKanpur Nagar. (Para 1)

Submission of counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the husband of the deceased and the incident is
said to have taken place on 16.9.2013 in which the deceased received burn injuries and subsequently died on
23.9.2013 as a result thereof. Further submission is that the allegations of demanding the dowry and
illtreating the wife are all false and concocted. It has been further submitted that actually the deceased
accidentally got burnt and was thereafter immediately rushed to the hospital for providing medical succour to
her. Even at the time of incident, the applicant tried to save her and in that process he himself received some
burn injuries. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.4 which is the paper issued by
Regency Hospital, Kanpur after the death in which it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased was
brought to the hospital by her husband Sunil Kumar, the applicant. Several papers regarding medical
treatment of the deceased have also been annexed as Annexure No.2 starting from Page-22 up till 52 of this
application. The attention has also been drawn to Annexure No.3 which contains the medical papers with
regard to treatment of applicant himself. It has been further pointed out that the inquest proceedings of the
deceased took place on the date of the death i.e. 23.9.2013 itself and amongst the witnesses of inquest
proceedings not only the brother of the applicant namely Prakash was one of the witnesses, the first
informant, who is mother of the deceased, was also one of the witnesses in the inquest proceedings.
Submission is that after the incident, the information about the same was immediately given to the parental
side who had soon thereafter arrived and were all the time visiting the hospital. Counsel has also drawn the
attention of the Court to Annexure No.7 which contains the photographs of cremation of the deceased in
which also it has been pointed out that the husband is very much present. The contention is that after the
deceased succumbed to her injuries the dead-body was handed over to the applicant who himself managed
the cremation of the deceased and performed her last rites. Argument raised is that it is so significant to note
that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 28.9.2013. Submission is that had there been any truth in the
8 All. Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti Vs State Of U.P.
387
allegations of demanding the dowry or com

## Text

386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 386
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 1332 Of 2015

Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prabhakar Dwivedi, Smt. Vidya Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Bail application - Case Crime No.167 of 2013 - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3⁄4
D.P. Act - Husband of the deceased - Burn injuries - Delay in lodging the F.I.R. - Medical treatment -
Inquest proceedings - Period of detention - Unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial - Bail granted

This bail application has been moved seeking the release of applicant on bail in connection with Case Crime
No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Raipurwa, DistrictKanpur Nagar. (Para 1)

Submission of counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the husband of the deceased and the incident is
said to have taken place on 16.9.2013 in which the deceased received burn injuries and subsequently died on
23.9.2013 as a result thereof. Further submission is that the allegations of demanding the dowry and
illtreating the wife are all false and concocted. It has been further submitted that actually the deceased
accidentally got burnt and was thereafter immediately rushed to the hospital for providing medical succour to
her. Even at the time of incident, the applicant tried to save her and in that process he himself received some
burn injuries. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.4 which is the paper issued by
Regency Hospital, Kanpur after the death in which it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased was
brought to the hospital by her husband Sunil Kumar, the applicant. Several papers regarding medical
treatment of the deceased have also been annexed as Annexure No.2 starting from Page-22 up till 52 of this
application. The attention has also been drawn to Annexure No.3 which contains the medical papers with
regard to treatment of applicant himself. It has been further pointed out that the inquest proceedings of the
deceased took place on the date of the death i.e. 23.9.2013 itself and amongst the witnesses of inquest
proceedings not only the brother of the applicant namely Prakash was one of the witnesses, the first
informant, who is mother of the deceased, was also one of the witnesses in the inquest proceedings.
Submission is that after the incident, the information about the same was immediately given to the parental
side who had soon thereafter arrived and were all the time visiting the hospital. Counsel has also drawn the
attention of the Court to Annexure No.7 which contains the photographs of cremation of the deceased in
which also it has been pointed out that the husband is very much present. The contention is that after the
deceased succumbed to her injuries the dead-body was handed over to the applicant who himself managed
the cremation of the deceased and performed her last rites. Argument raised is that it is so significant to note
that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 28.9.2013. Submission is that had there been any truth in the
8 All. Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti Vs State Of U.P.
387
allegations of demanding the dowry or committing cruelty upon the deceased then it is wholly
incomprehensible as to how and in what circumstances the first informant or any other members of her family
still chose not to report the matter earlier and would be waiting for so long. Further submission is that the
deceased also did not die on the day of occurrence and battled for life for several days after 15.9.2013 up till
23.9.2013. The next submission is that it is not the case in which the first informant was not having the
knowledge about the occurrence or happenings with the deceased. Further contention is that if the
background of cruelty and the history of demanding the dowry was existing already then after the deceased
got burnt the most natural instinct of the first informant would have been to bring this matter before the
police to investigate. Conspicuously enough even when the first informant was herself the witness of inquest
proceedings, neither on that date when the police officers were very much present nor till even a few days
thereafter she ever reported the matter. It was only on 28.9.2013 that after confabulations and concerts the
F.I.R. was lodged which is obviously the result of afterthought with the purpose to blackmail the applicant.
Submission is that the post incident conduct of the applicant in carrying the wife to the hospital, incurring
huge expenditure with regard to her treatment and performing all the duties as husband even after her death
are all circumstances which are compatible with the innocence of the applicant and are wholly inconsistent
with his guilt. Further submission is that the extra-ordinary delay in reporting the matter despite the time and
opportunity being available is also a very strong circumstance which goes a long way to indicate that
subsequently developed story of ill-treating and demanding the dowry is not very credible in nature.
Contention is that the final adjudication on the point of guilt or innocence of the accused can be done after
proper trial but as of now the aforesaid circumstances create a strong prima facie case for bail in favour of
applicant. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel on the detention period and it has been pointed out
that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.01.2014 virtually without any trial and there is hardly any hope
of 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. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is
not having any criminal antecedents.(Para 4)

Held: (Paras:-6-7)
1.After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of
all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already
undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be
enlarged on bail.
2.Let the applicant-Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti, involved in Case Crime No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C.
and 3⁄4 D.P. Act, P.S.Raipurwa, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following
conditions:-
(1)The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with theprosecution evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(2)The applicant will personally appear on each and every date inthe court and his personal presence shall not
be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice

Case Law discussed:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.)
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. This bail application has been moved seeking the release of applicant on bail in connection
with Case Crime No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and D.P. Act, P.S.-Raipurwa, DistrictKanpur Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

3. Perused the record.

4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the husband of the deceased and the
incident is said to have taken place on 16.9.2013 in which the deceased received burn injuries and
subsequently died on 23.9.2013 as a result thereof. Further submission is that the allegations of demanding
the dowry and ill-treating the wife are all false and concocted. It has been further submitted that actually
the deceased accidentally got burnt and was thereafter immediately rushed to the hospital for providing
medical succour to her. Even at the time of incident, the applicant tried to save her and in that process he
himself received some burn injuries. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.4
which is the paper issued by Regency Hospital, Kanpur after the death in which it has been clearly
mentioned that the deceased was brought to the hospital by her husband Sunil Kumar, the applicant.
Several papers regarding medical treatment of the deceased have also been annexed as Annexure No.2
starting from Page-22 up till 52 of this application. The attention has also been drawn to Annexure No.3
which contains the medical papers with regard to treatment of applicant himself. It has been further
pointed out that the inquest proceedings of the deceased took place on the date of the death i.e. 23.9.2013
itself and amongst the witnesses of inquest proceedings not only the brother of the applicant namely
Prakash was one of the witnesses, the first informant, who is mother of the deceased, was also one of the
witnesses in the inquest proceedings. Submission is that after the incident, the information about the same
was immediately given to the parental side who had soon thereafter arrived and were all the time visiting
the hospital. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.7 which contains the
photographs of cremation of the deceased in which also it has been pointed out that the husband is very
much present. The contention is that after the deceased succumbed to her injuries the dead-body was
handed over to the applicant who himself managed the cremation of the deceased and performed her last
rites. Argument raised is that it is so significant to note that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 28.9.2013.
Submission is that had there been any truth in the allegations of demanding the dowry or committing
cruelty upon the deceased then it is wholly incomprehensible as to how and in what circumstances the first
informant or any other members of her family still chose not to report the matter earlier and would be
waiting for so long. Further submission is that the deceased also did not die on the day of occurrence and
battled for life for several days after 15.9.2013 up till 23.9.2013. The next submission is that it is not the
case in which the first informant was not having the knowledge about the occurrence or happenings with
the deceased. Further contention is that if the background of cruelty and the history of demanding the
dowry was existing already then after the deceased got burnt the most natural instinct of the first informant
would have been to bring this matter before the police to investigate. Conspicuously enough even when
the first informant was herself the witness of inquest proceedings, neither on that date when the police
officers were very much present nor till even a few days thereafter she ever reported the matter. It was only
on 28.9.2013 that after confabulations and concerts the F.I.R. was lodged which is obviously the result of
afterthought with the purpose to blackmail the applicant. Submission is that the post incident conduct of
8 All. Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti Vs State Of U.P.
389
the applicant in carrying the wife to the hospital, incurring huge expenditure with regard to her treatment
and performing all the duties as husband even after her death are all circumstances which are compatible
with the innocence of the applicant and are wholly inconsistent with his guilt. Further submission is that
the extra-ordinary delay in reporting the matter despite the time and opportunity being available is also a
very strong circumstance which goes a long way to indicate that subsequently developed story of illtreating and demanding the dowry is not very credible in nature. Contention is that the final adjudication
on the point of guilt or innocence of the accused can be done after proper trial but as of now the aforesaid
circumstances create a strong prima facie case for bail in favour of applicant. Much emphasis has been laid
by the counsel on the detention period and it has been pointed out that the applicant is languishing in jail
since 27.01.2014 virtually without any trial and there is hardly any hope of 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. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any
criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an
overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing
material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the
applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant-Sunil Kumar @ Jyoti, involved in Case Crime No.167 of 2013, u/s 498-A,
304-B, 302 I.P.C. and D.P. Act, P.S.-Raipurwa, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in
any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his
personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal
of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
-----------
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 390
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 1563 Of 2016
&
Criminal Revision No.- 1606 Of 2016

Ashok Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ram Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

 Criminal law-Criminal Revision - Final Report - Protest petition - Section 190 Cr.P.C. - Section 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. - Chapter XV Cr.P.C. - Cognizance - Evidence on case diary - Statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. - Injury report - Summoning order - Revisions dismissed.

As both these revisions arise out of the same impugned order dated 29.2.2016 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Etawah in the same Case Crime No. 194 of 2013 under Sections 307,
504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, district Etawah on the same Final Report No. 172 of 2013 (Jagvir
Singh Vs. Jaswant and others), both are hereby being disposed of by this common order.(Para-1)

The revisionists in both these revisions are the accused persons of the same occurrence, which is said to have
taken place on 23.4.2013, when one Lalji, the elder brother of the first informant, was going to some other
village to meet his married daughter. At about 7.00 P.M. when he reached near the canal, he was intercepted
by the accused persons reaching there on two motorcycles. One motorcycle blocked his way from the front
side and the other from the back side. It has been alleged that the accused revisionists Jaswant, Amar Singh
and Chet Ram alongwith one unknown person alighted from those motorcycles and surrounded the elder
brother of the first informant/opposite party no. 3 from all sides. One of them exhorted with the words
"BAHUT PAIRVI KARTA HAI, SAALE KO JAAN SE MAAR DO". On this, accused revisionists Jaswant took out a
country made pistol and fired on Lal Ji. The fire hit on the inner side of joint of the left elbow of Lal Ji causing
a through and through injury. Thereafter, seeing a car coming on that road, all the accused persons ran away
from the spot on their motorcycles. The persons sitting in the car, saw Lal Ji lying on the road in an injured
condition, they took him to the hospital and telephoned the police. The FIR of the incident was lodged on the
same day, by the younger brother of injured at P.S. Civil Lines, Etawah, which was registered as Case Crime
No. 194 of 2013 under Section 307 I.P.C. and investigation proceeded. During investigation the name of
unknown accused came to light as Ashok (sole revisionist in Crl. Revision No. 1563 of 2016). However, after
investigation, the I.O. submitted Final Report in the matter.(Para-2)