The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Dheer Singh @ Dheeru, who was serving 10 years imprisonment on charges of culpable homicide in Muzaffarnagar’s Khatauli police station.
A Single Bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Dheer Singh @ Dheeru.
The Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant Dheer Singh @ Dheeru against the conviction and sentence recorded vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial, arising out of case under Sections 304, 201 IPC, P.S Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 304 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 IPC with a fine of Rs 25,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo two months additional imprisonment and to undergo three years imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC with a fine of Rs 10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo one month additional imprisonment.
By means of the bail application, the appellant-applicant seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
When the mother of the informant was teased by Harendra @ Sundar, the son of the appellant and she protested, the appellant alongwith his son Pravindra made assault with the aid of balkati and darati (sharp edged weapon) upon her who sustained grievous injuries and after few days she died. The accused persons set ablaze the dead body of the deceased in the house of the informant itself with intention to disappear the evidence of the offence. F.I.R was lodged and after initiation of prosecution the appellant was convicted and sentenced.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
It has been further submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Judge is against the weight of evidence on record. The trial court has misread the evidence on record and convicted the appellant. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant has been in jail since 7.6.2022. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit.
It is also submitted that the appellant had no intention / motive to do away with the deceased, the mother of the informant.
It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the appellant. There is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant set ablaze the dead body of the deceased in the house of the informant. It is further submitted that a number of three persons have been named in the F.I.R as accused but however the charge was framed only against the appellant.
It is also submitted that in the post mortem report of the deceased several ante mortem injuries have been found, which are against the evidence on record.
It is lastly submitted that a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment has been awarded to the appellant in this case.
On the other hand, AGA vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that a specific role of assault upon the deceased has been assigned to the appellant and his conviction has been recorded on the basis of cogent and reliable piece of eye witness account. Medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version and injuries of sharp edged weapons have been found over the body of the deceased, as claimed by the prosecution.
It is also submitted that the appellant is the sole convict person and it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder wherein a sentence of 10 years imprisonment has been awarded by the trial court under Section 304 IPC.
It is also submitted that the offence committed by the appellant is brutal as he also set ablaze the dead body of the deceased with the motive of causing disappearance of the evidence. So far as the physical condition of the appellant is concerned, instructions have been obtained from the Superintendent District Jail, Muzaffarnagar to the effect that to save the life of the appellant he was admitted in the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar wherefrom he was referred to L.L.R.M Medical College, Meerut but since no recovery was found in his health, he was referred to A.I.M.S, New Delhi on 26.2.2024 where he was admitted and his treatment was going on.
It is also submitted that on 28.2.2024 he was referred to V.M.M.C Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and his treatment is going on there. It is also submitted that as per the directions of the D.G (Prison Administration), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 1.10.2019 sent to all Jails in U.P it is the duty of the jail administration to provide best medical treatment to the ailing under trials / convicts under detention and following the same the best treatment is being provided to the appellant and in this way not only on merits of the case even on medical ground also appellant is not entitled for bail.
“There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in a case of pre trial and suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C for grant of bail post conviction, as in a case of post conviction bail there is a finding of guilt and question of presumption of innocence does not arise, therefore, the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception is not attracted in such cases. The discretion under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C is to be exercised judiciously and the Court is under an obligation to consider whether any cogent grounds were disclosed which might give substantial doubts about the validity of conviction and whether there is a likelihood of unreasonable delay in disposal of appeal.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the cumulative effect of the evidence, gravity of the offence the fact that active participation and role of the appellant has been fully proved beyond reasonable doubt and also the fact that better medical treatment is being provided to the appellant in the hospital at New Delhi, and all other evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant / appellant on bail”, the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.