Yogendra Nath Shukla vs The State of U.P.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J.—Counter-affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

Heard Mr. Atul Verma, Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

According to the prosecution case, two daughters, namely, Pushpa Shukla and Aasha Shukla of the complainant were married with two brothers, namely, Devendra Nath Shukla and applicant Yogendra Nath Shukla and after their marriage both the girls were subjected to harassment and ill treatment at the hands of their husbands and parents-in-law on account of non fulfillment of the demand of T.V., motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in dowry. About twenty five days prior to the lodging of the report on 22.8.2008, the father of the applicant informed the complainant that Aasha Shukla had gone missing from his house and could not be found despite search and on 20.8.2008 the local Corporator Sri Girish Kumar informed him that Pushpa Shukla had died and when the parents of Pushpa arrived at her in-laws house, preparations were being made for the cremation of the deceased.

It has been pointed out by Mr. Verma that the F.I.R. was initially registered u/s 498-A and 304-B and 364 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act but after investigation the charge-sheet has been filed u/s 302 I.P.C. in respect of the death of Pushpa Shukla and u/s 364 I.P.C. in respect of Aasha Shukla.

Mr. Verma has contended that Aasha Shukla had not gone missing about 25 days prior to the lodging of the report as alleged in it, but she went missing on 27.11.2003 and the applicant''s father had given an information in writing in respect thereof at the concerned Police Station Mahanagar on 28.11.2003 which was entered in G.D. No. 32 at 14.30 hours of the said Police Station of that date and the fact of the disappearance of Assha Shukla was also published in two newspapers of 29.11.2003, but the report in respect of Aasha Shukla has now been lodged by the complainant after about five years of her missing, despite the fact that the complainant knew about the fact of missing of her daughter from 2003 and during this period the applicant, who is the husband of Aasha Shukla, and his family members remained present at his residence. It is also contended that the allegations that Aasha Shukla had been abducted by the applicant and his family members to commit her murder is unfounded. It is also pointed out that dead body of Aasha Shukla has not been found till date.

Mr. Verma has further contended that Pushpa had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance as she was mentally unstable and was of very temperamental mind and aggressive by nature and after the fact of the attempt on her part to commit suicide had come into the knowledge of the family members of the applicant, they immediately took her to a renowned hospital, namely, Neer Nursing Home, in order to provide first aid and to save her life and Pushpa was provided with best possible medical facilities including Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) i.e. cardiac massage to revive the heart beating but unfortunately she could not be saved and was declared dead. It has also been contended that the complainant was informed about the incident through local Corporator Shri Girish Singh and the inquest proceedings were conducted in the presence of the family members of the complainant as well as the applicant and they were made Punchas and after the post mortem examination of the deceased the dead body was received by the applicant''s brother who made necessary arrangements for bringing the dead body to his home and had cremated it. It is also contended that the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act are not attracted in this case and, although the applicant is the brother of the husband of the deceased, yet there is no specific allegation/evidence against him. It has also been contended that the allegations of the demand in dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment on account thereof are false. It is also pointed out that co-accused Devendra Nath Shukla and husband of Pushpa Shukla has already been admitted to bail by this Court.

The bail has, however, been opposed by the learned A.G.A., who has also contended that father of the applicant was the Head Constable and was posted in the Office of the Inspector General of Police and he got the entries made in the G.D. of the concerned Police Station.

In reply to this contention, Mr. Verma has pointed out that the factum of missing of Aasha Shukla was also reported in the two newspapers on 29.11.2003 (annexures-10 & 11).

The points pertaining to the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.

Considering the above contentions and that the missing of Aasha Shukla was reported to the police in the year 2003, it appears to be a fit case for bail.

Let applicant Yogendra Nath Shukla involved in case crime No. 411 of 2008 under Sections 364 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.