Allahabad High Court
Anand Prajapati vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40156 of 2022
Applicant :- Anand Prajapati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Vinay Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Chandra Prajapati
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.168 of 2022, under Sections 306, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Raksa, District Jhansi.
3. As per contents of FIR, the marriage between the applicant and the deceased is said to have taken place on 27.04.2015. It is stated that during the course of marriage, a son was born after one year of marriage who also passed away whereafter two girls were born and the deceased was harassed on account of the fact of dowry demand, birth of two girls and extra marital relationship of the applicant. It is stated that owing to the aforesaid fact, the deceased committed suicide on 07.06.2022.
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 applicant is husband of deceased. It is submitted that the applicant was married to the deceased for more than seven years but relation between the two was quite strained as would be evident from statement of independent witnesses, which indicates that the deceased suspected applicant of having extra marital relationship. It is submitted that the postmortem report clearly does not indicate any injuries on the body of deceased and neither the FIR nor the statement of first informant and other independent witnesses satisfy the conditions and ingredients of section 107 IPC.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that although marriage had taken place on 27.04.2015 but the deceased was continuously harassed on account of dowry and for having produced girl child. It is submitted that applicant was also in an extra marital relationship due to which he caused harassment of the deceased to such an extent she was compelled to commit suicide.
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 the marriage appears to have taken place about seven years prior to the date of incident. Reading of the FIR as well as statement of first informant and other independent witnesses at this stage do not appear to satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 IPC. Applicant is under incarceration since 25.06.2022 with only charges having been framed.
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 Prajapati, 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 :- 14.12.2022
Subodh/-
