Allahabad High Court
Murtaza vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 4735 of 2021
Applicant :- Murtaza
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Yadav,Basant Lal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
(At Residence)
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dileep Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears through video conferencing in virtual hearing and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Abhay Kumar, Advocate also appears through video conferencing in virtual hearing who submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted in the concerned court against the present accused-applicat.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant- Murtaza who is involved in Case Crime No.375/2020 under Sections 420, 306, 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Kheri vide order dated 17.4.2021.
Learned A.G.A. is present to protest the bail-application, to whom the instructions are received and informs that after conclusion of investigation, submission of charge sheet has been done before the Court concerned.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant submitted that the death of the deceased has occurred on 29.6.2020, post-mortem examination was also made on the dead body, cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, visra is preserved, however, an F.I.R. on 4.7.2020 was registered on the complaint of the deceased's wife on the basis of an alleged suicide note found by her from the documents of deceased which was written on 29.5.2020.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant submitted that the alleged suicide note is not written and kept by the deceased but is prepared by the complainant to make out falsely a case against the present accused-applicant. The borrowing of money and execution of agreements are bilateral transactions, wherein beneficiary was the deceased himself.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submitted that the alleged suicide note, on the basis of which, the present accused-applicant is falsely implicated does not show any threat, inducement or pressure which amounts immediate cause of committing suicide. It is falsely said to be written by the deceased on 29.5.2020 but disclosed after a considerable lapse of time of one month on 29.6.2020, the date of death of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submitted that during the investigation the hand writing of the deceased was not compared with any other admitted hand writing of the deceased, in absence whereof, the suicide note cannot be ascertained to be written by the deceased at this stage.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submitted that the entire case of prosecution is full of concoction and suspicion without any substantiative allegation directly against the present accused applicant. The present accused-applicant is in jail since 20.2.2021 without any fault of him.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant lastly submitted that there is no criminal antecedent on the part of the accused-applicant and he is a common man, resident of the same locality of which the deceased and his family resides, he is not in a position to flee away from the process of the court, therefore, if he is released on bail and subjected to the conditions imposed by the court, he will ensure his presence before the court during the trial, wherein charge-sheet has already been submitted in the court concerned.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submitted that though the charge-sheet is submitted in the court but the investigating officer has not provided the entire case diary on the ground of the extent of pandemic of Covid-19. He further submitted that the charge-sheet has mentioned in brief that on the basis of evidences collected during the investigation, the accused is found involved in the case. However, learned A.G.A. is not in a position to submit the evidences or statement of witnesses on record on the basis of which the present accused-applicant is arraigned, responsible for the offence of Section 306 I.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. further has nothing to show the involvement of the present accused-applicant in compelling the deceased for committing suicide by reason of his acts.
After hearing both the parties and estimation of F.I.R. as well other documents i.e., post mortem report and arguments submitted by learned counsels, I find that there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail applicant that no prima facie case of prosecution is made out at this stage.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the complicity of the applicant accused in the offence, the gravity of offence, severity of punishment without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Murtaza) involved in Case Crime No.375/2020 under Sections 420, 306, 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 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 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 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 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 him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.5.2021
Gaurav/-
