Allahabad High Court
Raja Nayak vs State Of U.P. on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45028 of 2022
Applicant :- Raja Nayak
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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.927 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj.
3. Applicant is the husband of deceased and as per contents of FIR, marriage had taken place four years prior to the date incident thereafter the deceased was continuously harassed for dowry and upon its unfulfillment was said to have been murdered by the applicant on 10.12.2017.
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 only general allegations of dowry harassment have been made in the FIR without any corroboration. Attention has been drawn to the certified copy of statement of first informant as P.W.1 to submit that the prosecution version has not been supported in the deposition in which the first informant has clearly admitted to the fact that the deceased was in a continuous depressed state due to the fact that she did not have any children. The first informant also indicates that the deceased was under going treatment for the same purpose. Attention has also been drawn to the statement to indicate that FIR has been lodged only on account of the fact that the applicant did not succumb to financial blackmail of the first informant. Learned counsel has also submitted that applicant is in jail since 30.12.2017 and as yet evidence of only two prosecution witnesses has been completed although as per charge-sheet there are 22 prosecution witnesses.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that applicant being husband and death of his wife having occasioned unnaturally within a period of four years from marriage, presumption is upon him to discharge.
6. 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."
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although allegations of dowry harassment have been made in the FIR but the same have not been corroborated by the first informant as P.W.1 during the course of trial who has not entirely supported the prosecution version. It also appears that although applicant is in jail since 30.12.2017, evidence of only two prosecution witnesses have been completed although as per charge-sheet there are 22 prosecution witnesses. Copy of order-sheet dated 22.08.2022 also reveals that evidence has not been continued ever since 05.11.2018 while applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2017. It also appears that bailable warrants have been issued to ensure presence of prosecution witnesses.
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, Raja Nayak, 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 :- 12.12.2022
Subodh/-
