Allahabad High Court
Tinku @ Prem Singh 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. - 44468 of 2020
Applicant :- Tinku @ Prem Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Tripathi,Abhishek Mishra,Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Mishra, 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.208 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 328, 304B, 342, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.
3. Applicant is the husband of deceased and as per allegations levelled in the FIR was married to the sister of informant in the year 2018 whereafter continuous demand for dowry was being made and upon its unfulfillment, allegedly murdered his wife on 12.05.2019 by administering some poisonous substance.
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 as per postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and therefore viscera was preserved and as per viscera report, death has occurred due to intake of aluminium phosphide. However attention has been drawn to the postmortem report to indicate that there is no external injury on the body which clearly indicates suicide having been committed by the deceased. Attention has also been drawn to certified copies of depositions of witnesses of fact as P.W. 1, 2 and 3 who have not supported the prosecution version and were therefore declared hostile. It is submitted that as per deposition of prosecution witnesses, the deceased was not happy with the marriage and was forced into it. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 30.06.2019 and although there are a total of 15 prosecution witnesses and therefore there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. As yet only three prosecution witnesses have been examined.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicant being the husband of deceased and death having occasioned unnaturally within a period of one year of marriage, presumption is upon him to discharge under section 113 of the Evidence Act.
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 demand have been made in the FIR but as per viscera report, death has occasioned due to intake of aluminium phosphide although there is no mark of injury on the body of deceased. None of the witnesses of fact as P.W.1, 2 and 3 have supported the prosecution version and were therefore declared hostile. Applicant is under incarceration since 30.06.2019 with 12 more prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined.
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, Tinku @ Prem Singh, 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/-
