Allahabad High Court
Hariram Sahani vs State Of U.P. on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34055 of 2022
Applicant :- Hariram Sahani
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mani Ram Verma,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 141 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 306 IPC, P.S. Shahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.
3. Applicant is husband of deceased and as per contents of FIR, marriage had taken place between the applicant and daughter of the informant on 22nd February, 2015 whereafter she was continuously harassed for dowry and in February, 2022 had a miscarriage due to which also the deceased was tortured by the applicant due to which she committed suicide on 30th May, 2022.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of the fact that he is husband of deceased. It is submitted that there was no occasion for making a dowry demand almost 7 years after the marriage and even otherwise as per contents of F.I.R. and statement of first informant himself, the suicide has taken place on account of miscarriage having been suffered by deceased due to which she was in a state of depression. The applicant is in jail since 18th June, 2022 in which charge sheet has already been filed but there is no cogent explanation for a delay of 14 days in filing the F.I.R.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that F.I.R. as well as statement of informant clearly makes out a cognizable offence.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that marriage between the applicant and the deceased had taken place more than seven years prior to the date of incident. The F.I.R. clearly states that deceased had a miscarriage in February, 2022 which also was a cause for having committed suicide. There does not appear to be any cogent explanation for a delay of 14 days in lodging the F.I.R. The aspect of implication of ingredients of Section 107 IPC are a matter of evidence required to be corroborated during course of trial. Applicant is in jail since 18th June 2022 with only charge sheet having been filed.
7. 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."
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant Hariram Sahani 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 :- 2.12.2022
Prabhat
