Allahabad High Court
Beniram @ Brajlal vs State Of U.P. on 5 December, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45826 of 2022
Applicant :- Beniram @ Brajlal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The case is taken up in the revised call.
Heard Mr. Nirbhay Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This instant bail application has been filed by applicant Beniram @ Brajlal with prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.73 of 2019 under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jahanabad, District- Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 27.07.2022; he has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. The applicant is brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased, who has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.p.C. It was a case of death under consumption of some intoxicant; instantly police was reported; inquest proceeding was got conducted, wherein, cause of death could not be ascertained; dead body was sealed intact and sent for autopsy examination; in autopsy examination too, cause of death could not be ascertained; hence, viscera was preserved; in forensic science laboratory report, viscera was with organophosphorus insecticide; no other injury except one abraided contusion was there over the person of deceased; this report was got lodged after the last rituals were performed on 9.3.2019 whereas, informant had informed police for getting autopsy examination and inquest proceeding on 28.2.2019; it was done so, till then there was no accusation and after consultation, this false accusation was got lodged; it was not a forceful administration of poison nor any cruelty by applicant; marriage was of more than five years; moreso, applicant had no concern; it is stated that co-accused Mahendra Pal, father-in-law of the deceased and Jogender Singh, brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased, have been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 16.08.2021 and 22.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.33775 of 2019 and 42391 of 2022 respectively. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
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."
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having heard learned counsels for both sides and going through materials placed on record, it is apparent that death is owing to intake of insecticide. No injury except one abraided contusion is there over the person of deceased. Applicant is brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased and in jail since 27.07.2022.
7. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Beniram @ Brajlal 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.
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 merits of the case.
Order Date :- 5.12.2022
Rahul.
