Allahabad High Court
Sunil 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. - 29520 of 2022
Applicant :- Sunil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Badri Mani Tripathi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Session Trial No. 1200 of 2021, Case Crime No. 8 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 307, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Airwakatra, District Auraiya.
3. Applicant is brother-in-law of the deceased. As per contents of FIR, the daughter of informant was married to one Saurabh on 28th February, 2017 whereafter continuous demand for dowry was being made at the instance of husband and his family members and she was turned out of the house due to which she started living in her maternal home. It is submitted that on 13th January 2021 at about 7.30 P.M., the husband Saurabh along with the applicant who is the elder brother of the husband and one Ashwani came to the house of the informant and opened fire upon the deceased. The informant being mother of deceased tried to intervene and was also fired upon.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only because he belongs to the family of husband. It is submitted that in the F.I.R., three persons have been nominated as having opened fire without any specific assertion with regard to role of any particular person in opening fire upon the deceased and the informant. It is submitted that even in the statement of injured witness, no specific assertion regarding role of applicant in firing has been indicated whereas post mortem report indicates single fire army injury on the deceased as well as injured witness. It is submitted that as such only general assertions have been made against the applicant who is in jail since 14th June, 2021 with only charges having been framed
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that present crime comes under the category of a heinous crime since the daughter-in-law was shot at and murdered in her own maternal house after being turned out by her husband. It is submitted that post mortem report clearly corroborates the charges levelled against the applicant.
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 applicant is elder brother of husband of deceased and in F.I.R. as well as in the statement of injured witness, a general role of participation has been assigned to the applicant without any specific role of firing being assigned to him. Post mortem report indicates single fire arm injury on the deceased and the injured witness. The applicant is in jail since 14th June, 2021 and it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that as yet only charges having been framed.
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 Sunil 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
