Shivam Singh vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 10715 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4824 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Shivam Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Anjali Dubey,Pramod Kumar Shukla,Rajiv Mishra,Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Pleadings are complete and have already been exchanged between the parties.

Heard Ms. Anjali Dubey, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Shivam Singh, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Session Trial No. 205 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghunghter, District Barabanki.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased. The informant, who is the father of the deceased lodged a first information report dated 28.04.2019 against four persons, namely, Shivam Singh (applicant), Raj Bahadur Singh, Gudiya Singh and Shivani Singh alleging therein that and he had solemnized marriage of his daughter with the applicant on 24.04.2018, at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given, in-laws of her daughter including the applicant were not satisfied with the same and they used to made demand of additional dowry in the form of motorcycle, golden chain and one lakh and fifty thousand rupees, and on account of non fulfillment therefore, the accused persons killed her daughter on 27.04.2019 by administering her poison. After investigation the name of sister of applicant was dropped by the Investigation Officer.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in postmortem of the deceased two injuries, one lacerated wound on toe of right foot and second was an abrasion on the right leg of the deceased were found. Cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved, and as per the viscera report aluminium phosphide poison was found.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that deceased was the short tempered lady, she always used to insist the applicant to live with her at her parental house, which demand was used to deny by the applicant, on account of which she remains under pressure. On the date of incident on some quarrel took place between the applicant and the deceased, ultimately she consumed poison without knowledge of the applicant and his family members. At the time of incident when the deceased consumed poison the applicant was not present, his mother informed his father, who informed the applicant that the deceased had consumed poison, thereafter, applicant reached at his house and taken her to the hospital where she was declared dead.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no intention or reason for the applicant or for his any family members to give poison to the deceased. The deceased committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide poison, of which the applicant or his family members was having no knowledge. The allegation of demand of dowry is false and fabricated. There is no complaint regarding demand of additional dowry after the marriage or before the date of incident. A general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons for demand of additional dowry, and causing cruelty to the deceased and ultimately killing her on account of non fulfillment of the said demand.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on similar footing and on similar allegations the father-in-law of the deceased, who is the father of the present applicant, namely Raj Bahadur Singh, and mother-in-law of the deceased, who is mother of the present applicant, namely, Gudiya Singh, have already been granted bail by two different coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.12.2019 and 01.06.2020 passed in Bail Nos. 8474 of 2019 and 1379 of 2020, therefore, the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, who have already been granted bail by this Court as there are general allegations against all the accused persons, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 29.04.2019 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the said judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the said judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that ratio of law applicable in above those cases is also applicable in the case of the applicant, therefore, applicant be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-35 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 29.04.2019 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased, therefore, his bail application may be rejected, but has not disputed the fact that similarly circumstanced father and mother of applicant, have already been granted bail.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence; considering the fact that general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons; no specific allegation regarding administering poison has been made against them including the applicant; in the post mortem of the deceased cause of death was not ascertainable, hence viscera was preserved and as per viscera report aluminium phosphide poison was found, there was no other injury found on the person of the victim except on her right toe of right foot and on right leg, similarly circumstanced co-accused, who are father and mother of the applicant, have already been granted bail and the case of applicant is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused, as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal (supra), Takht Singh (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Shivam Singh, involved in Session Trial No. 205 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghunghter, District Barabanki, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 22.8.2022

Mustaqeem