Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 21 January, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 30
Case :- BAIL No. - 1393 of 2018
Applicant :- Pramod Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Milan Yadav,Mayank Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.224/2016, under Sections - 302,309 IPC, Police Station- Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of the bail plea of the accused-applicant by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 08.12.2017, passed in Bail application no.1142/2017.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that according to FIR, on the date of incident, i.e., 15.7.2016 the accused-applicant and the deceased of the incident, both husband and wife, were quarreling wherein the husband (accused-applicant) got infuriated and in the rash he took the knife and inflicted the blow thereof upon the wife (deceased). Learned counsel in this connection drew the attention towards the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC wherein one of the witnesses Achche Lal, a near relative of the accused-applicant the cousin and another 'Vivek' 14 yars old son of the deceased and the accused-applicant have stated unequivocally that accused-applicant was a person of arrogant and short tempered angry man. On the date of incident he was quarreling with the wife is also stated by the witnesses. Further, the dying declaration made to the Achche Lal is also stated to the Investigating Officer disclosing cause of death, which affirms the infliction of knife upon the deceased wife by the accused-applicant in the course of their usual quarrel. It is further stated that seeing the deceased injured, in repentance he inflicted blow on his own body. Further from the statement of witnesses it appears that the wife was carried to the hospital but could not reach there and succumbed to the injuries on the way, however, the accused-applicant was hospitalized for treatment.
Learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid facts submits that the act of the accused was neither voluntary nor intentional and the infliction of knife blow upon the deceased wife was not pre-planned and premeditated, rather, it was made in the sudden rash and provocation in the course of quarrel with wife. As such, learned counsel submits that though the knife used by the accused-applicant was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the applicant might know about result but as the same is not intentional, the accused-applicant cannot be held prima-facie guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
In the counter affidavit, learned Additional Government Advocate has annexed the medical report and statements recorded by the Investigating Officer and the incident as narrated by the complainant is also akin to that stated by the other prosecution witnesses relied on by the accused-applicant in his supplementary affidavit. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the entire investigation is completed and culminated into the submission of the chargesheet before the Court and now after committal the trial is running where the complainant witness has been examined.
Learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant had a son out of his wedlock with the deceased-wife and the marriage has been peaceful till the date of incident of approximately 20 years. Nothing has been reported by way of complaint to police or otherwise for cruel behaviour of accused against the wife. He further submits that since there is responsibility of child and family upon the accused-applicant and his detention in jail is adversely affecting the responsibility. Further, he submits that he is the permanent resident of locality and he is not in a position to abscond. Learned counsel further submits that accused-applicant is in jail since 17.7.2016. He has not criminal antecedent but out of his short tempered nature for which he has adversely suffered a lot by reason of the present incident.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation, complicity of the accused-applicants, gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the period for which they are in jail, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let applicant- Pramod Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No.224/2016, under Section - 302, 309 IPC, Police Station - Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021
mks
