Prem S/O Shri Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11388 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7809 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Prem S/O Shri Ram
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Atiya Abid,Rajesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Ms. Atiya Abid, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Prem, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.223 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant is husband of the deceased who committed suicide by consuming orgenophosphorus insecticide poison which is common insecticide and is used for agricultural purposes and is generally kept in the house of farmer.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the relation between the applicant and the deceased was cordial except some minor dispute. The deceased was having severe abdominal pain due to which she was living under pressure and ultimately on the date of incident i.e 26/05/2018, she consumed alleged poison at her parental house and died. There is no role of the applicant or his other family members named in the FIR in administering the alleged poison to the deceased. In the FIR, which is lodged by the complainant (mother of the deceased), general allegation of making demand of additional dowry, causing cruelty to the deceased and administering the alleged poison to the deceased has been made against all the named accused persons in the FIR, whereas no demand of additional dowry either at the time of marriage or after the marriage was made by the applicant or his family members. The applicant was not present at the time of alleged incident. When he received information about the alleged incident, he reached in law's house at once and took his wife to the hospital for treatment but during the course of treatment she died.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the complainant recorded before the court below on 30/04/2022 in which she has clearly stated that her daughter consumed the alleged poison in her parental house where she died. At that time the complainant was not present there. On the saying of other persons she had taken the names of 8-10 persons. The complainant further stated that her daughter fell down from the Motorcycle, due to which she had received some injuries. The information was given by the complainant to his son-in-law (present applicant). She got admitted her daughter in the hospital where she died. The complainant further stated that the applicant and his family members are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no role of the applicant and his family members of administering the alleged poison to the deceased nor they have made any demand of additional dowry nor caused cruelty to the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant has been declared hostile.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that coaccused Shri Ram and Smt. Manjhlo @ Savitri Devi, who are father and mother of the applicant having similar allegation as of the applicant, have already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 8.3.2021 and 26.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Nos. 6672 of 2020 and 12018 of 2021, respectively, therefore, the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the said coaccused, who have already been granted bail by this Court, as such the bail application of the present applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he is entitled for the benefit of the same and to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 10-08-2020 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 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 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."

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant 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. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 10.08.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned AGA-1 and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but do not dispute the fact that the aforesaid coaccused have already been granted bail by this Court having similar allegation as of the present applicant. They further submitted that the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage and she was being subjected to cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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 of making demand of additional dowry, causing cruelty to the deceased and administering the alleged poison has been levelled against all the accused persons named in the FIR and no specific allegation for the same has been levelled against the applicant. The cause of death could not be ascertained hence viscera was preserved and as per the forensic science laboratory the alleged poison was found. The complainant in her statement recorded before the court below on 30.4.2022 has clearly stated that there is no role of applicant in administering the alleged poison to the deceased nor the applicant has caused any cruelty to the deceased nor any demand of additional dowry was made by the applicant. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case on the pressure created by the family members of the complainant. The aforesaid coaccused who are father and mother of the applicant against whom the similar allegation has been levelled by the prosecution, have already been granted bail by this Court , therefore the case of the present applicant is not on the worse footing than than of the said coaccused and further 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 Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP 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, Prem, involved in Case Crime No. 223 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur, 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 :- 29.8.2022

GSY