Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar @ Raju vs State Of Up Through The Secretary ... on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43338 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajkumar @ Raju
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through The Secretary Home
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Kashyap,Arjun Singh Solanki,V.P. Singh Kashyap
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for State, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for informant and perused the material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.60 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sidhpura, District Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
As per contents of FIR, the applicant is the father-in-law of deceased and marriage between the applicant's son and daughter of informant had taken place in the year 2018 whereafter continuous demand for dowry was being made and due to its unfulfillment, informant's daughter was allegedly murdered by the applicant and co-accused on 01.05.2022 by strangulation. It is alleged that various injuries were also caused to the deceased.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of informant's daughter was solemnized with the son of applicant in the year 2018. The applicant has never demanded for additional dowry as mentioned in the impugned FIR. Further contention is that applicant was living separately from the deceased. Only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. Further contention is that the entire family of the applicant has been implicated in the present case. As per postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injury. 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. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2022 having no previous criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
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."
Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the applicant is the father-in-law of deceased and general allegations of dowry demand and harassment have been made against all members of the family. As per post-mortem report, except for the ligature mark around the neck, there is no other obvious ante-mortem injury over the body of deceased. Learned counsel has also alleged separate living by the applicant and has drawn attention to the State Election Card as compared to the FIR to submit the fact that the applicant was living separately from his son who was in fact living with his wife in her maternal home and the incident has occurred only during the time period when the couple were visiting the applicant. It is submitted that the previous criminal history against the applicant has already been explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2022. Post-mortem report also does not appear to support the allegation.
Let applicant, Rajkumar @ Raju, 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
Subodh/-
