Allahabad High Court
Ramesh vs State Of U.P. on 28 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- BAIL No. - 1396 of 2021
Applicant :- Ramesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Soniya Mishra,Anjali Dubey,Rajiv Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 Pandemic and perused the record.
2. This first Bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.199/2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C. & under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled in the first information report and that he had nothing to do with the death of the deceased Poonam who was his sister-in-law. Learned counsel submits that only general allegations have been made in the first information report and there is neither any eye-witness account or any corroborative evidence indicating involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.07.2020 and due to COVID19 Pandemic, the trial is at the preliminary stage without even framing of charges. As such, it is submitted that there is no possibility of the trial concluding at an early date. It has also been submitted that the applicant is a student and his incarceration will have an adverse effect upon his studies. Learned counsel submits that applicant does not have any criminal history and there is no possibility of his either tampering with evidence or absconding.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with submission that a bare perusal of the first information report indicates the involvement of the applicant. He has also referred to the Statement of Neelam who is sister of the deceased to indicate demand of dowry.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
5. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that, prima facie, at this stage, there is no material evidence on record indicating involvement of applicant in the incident in question, which would be subject to corroboration in the trial and no independent eye witness or witness has been indicated, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, prima facie, this Court finds the applicant entitled to be released on bail in this case.
6. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
7. Let applicant, Ramesh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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 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 :- 28.6.2021
kvg/-
