Allahabad High Court
Atul Gupta @ Banti vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2015
Bench: Pratyush Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 11
Case :- BAIL No. - 5560 of 2014
Applicant :- Atul Gupta @ Banti
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Aniruddh Kumar Singh,Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Kapil Gupta
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
According to prosecution version, on 29.8.2013 at 11.00 p.m. from the house of the present applicant, situate at Buddheshwar Mohan Road within P.S. Para, District Lucknow, Smt. Julie was thrown from the window of the second storey of the house on the road by the present applicant (brother-in-law), husband and mother-in-law. Marriage of Smt. Julie has taken place in the month of July 2013. There are allegations that husband, present applicant and family members were harassing, beating and torturing Smt. Julie for dowry. The case was registered on 2.9.2013, under sections 498-A, 323, 325, 307, IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of bail application submits that it is a matrimonial dispute. There are chances of conciliation. FIR is delayed, the victim herself jumped from the window to commit suicide. It was the husband and his mother, who took her to the treatment and saved her life. According to the statements of neighbours, fact of her jumping from the window on her own volition is established.
On behalf of State and the Complainant bail has been vehemently opposed and it is argued that the victim/injured has not implicated her mother-in-law in throwing herself out of the window, which shows that she is stating the truth.
According to prosecution, nature of the crime not only reveals the greed of the accused persons, but also shows their ruthlessness and murderous intention. Smt. Julie is still unable to walk. Her life has been spoiled.
Since this is a peculiar case, I would like to recollect the matters to be considered while exercising discretionary power conferred by section 439, Cr.P.C. In the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while emphasizing on the exercise of discretionary power generally has to be done in strict compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of this Court, has observed as follows:
"9...among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
When considered in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is to be prima facie seen whether accused has committed the offence or are there reasonable grounds to believe so.
At one hand, there is a statement of the injured victim, who had squarely placed blame on the present applicant and on her husband. On the other hand, there are statements of neighbours Suresh Chandra Gupta, Mukesh Sharma, Om Prakash Gupta and Mazid Ali, who supported the version put forth on behalf of the applicant that Smt. Julie herself jumped from the window. Which version is true, it will be seen at the time of the trial. Suffice is to say that there is other version, substantiated from the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. On first point, I would like to go by the criminal jurisprudence that version favourable to the accused should not be discarded by the Court on its face value.
The second consideration nature and gravity of the accusation have been noticed while narrating the incident in brief. Of course the maximum punishment provided for the main offence is punishment of life imprisonment. Next consideration chances of absconding of the applicant appears to be negligible. It has been stated that he is a business man and has roots in the society. There is no criminal history of the present applicant except this matrimonial dispute. Nothing can be said against his character and conduct. Nature of the offence is such that likelihood of its repetition is negligible.
Tampering of the prosecution evidence can be avoided by imposing suitable conditions, therefore, according to criminal jurisprudence, as recollected hereinbefore, the present applicant appears to be entitled to be released on bail. More so, he is not the husband.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Atul Gupta @ Banti involved in Case Crime No.182 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 307, 323, 325, IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Para, District Lucknow be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82, Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.5.2015
T. Sinha
