Allahabad High Court
Anand vs State Of U.P. on 13 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56742 of 2022
Applicant :- Anand
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Asheesh Kumar Tiwari
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.176 of 2022, under Sections 306, 504 IPC, registered at Police Station Meerapur, District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. As per contents of FIR, the daughter of first informant was married to deceased (Paras) in the year 2016. It is stated that subsequently dispute arose between the deceased (Paras) and his family members including the applicant who is brother-in-law of the deceased. It is stated that the applicant as well as co-accused used to denigrate and humiliate Paras due to which he committed suicide by in-taking sulphas in a powder form.
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 related to the family members of deceased. It is submitted that a property dispute had arisen between the parties but even as per contents of FIR and statements of first informant as well as alleged eye witness under section 161 Cr.P.C., the ingredients of section 107 IPC are not satisfied particularly since the only general allegations have been levelled against the applicant without any indication that humiliation of deceased was caused to an extent that he was not left with any other option but to commit suicide.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the contents of FIR as well as statement of first informant under section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly make out a cognizable offence.
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 general allegations of humiliating the deceased one month prior to the date of incident have been levelled against the applicant as well as six other co-accused who are family members of the deceased. It appears that there was certain dispute on going between the deceased and his family members. However at this stage, there does not appear to be any credible evidence against the applicant indicating satisfaction of ingredient of section 107 IPC against the applicant. Charge-sheet is said to have been filed in the matter but trial has not yet commenced.
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, Anand, 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 :- 13.12.2022
Subodh/-
