Allahabad High Court
Keshpal vs State Of U.P. on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51811 of 2022
Applicant :- Keshpal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Ajay Kumar,Shiv Bhushan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.130 of 2022, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Jalesar, District-Etah, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 16.7.2022.
Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that after levelling a general and omnibus role upon the entire family of Pankaj the husband, the F.I.R. was registered on 13.5.2022 for the incident said to have taken place on 25.4.2022, after an inordinate delay of 18 days without any justification. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of Pankaj was solemnized with with the deceased on 23.5.2021 but on account of certain deep rooted differences the wife has taken this extreme step and consumed some poisonous substance. It is next contended that the husband has taken her wife and admitted to hospital and on the very next date during treatment she took last breath. Postmortem report of the deceased reveals that there is no external injury over her persons. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. is the result of an afterthought deliberation that is why the F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of 18 days as this delay has been used in cooking up an imaginary story of demand of additional dowry. It is also contended by learned counsel that during subsistence of marriage, the deceased has never made any complaint whatsoever regarding maltreatment on account of additional dowry. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and nearing to attaining the age of senior citizen, as such, he should be released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam vs State of Bihar decided on 8th February, 2022 in Crl. Appeal No.195 of 2022, whereby the Supreme Court has observed thus :
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts.
Taking into account the totality of circumstances, inordinate delay of 18 days in lodging of the F.I.R., no external injury is found over the body of the deceased in her postmortem report, she consumed some poisonous substance on account of certain incompatibility between the couple, the story of demand of dowry seems to be afterthought and as per prevailing practice in the society now-a-days, whereby every unnatural death of a married lady is being tried to bring within the realm of 304B I.P.C. and also keeping view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case and also the applicant, being father-in-law is an elderly person, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Keshpal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 IPC.
(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
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
M. Kumar
