Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22339 of 2020
Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Dubey,Anil Kumar Singh,Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Kumar Tripathi
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. 578 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya.
3. Applicant is husband of deceased and as per contents of FIR was married to the deceased five years prior to the date of incident whereafter constant demands for dwwry were being made and upon its unfulfilment, the deceased who is sister of the first informant was burnt to death on 12th December, 2019.
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 post mortem report although 95% burns have been suffered by the deceased but there is no smell of kerosene oil emitting from body and lungs are full of gas and soot. As such it is submitted that there is no question of the applicant having burnt his wife to death. Presumption against applicant is sought to be discharged on the ground that death has taken place in winters adjacent to the fire which was being used by his wife for warming herself. It is submitted that although applicant is in jail since 14th December, 2019 but as per certified copies of order sheet, charges have been framed against applicant in October, 2021 itself whereafter none of the prosecution witnesses are appearing despite summons being issued regularly. As such it is submitted that there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant being husband of deceased who has passed away unnaturally. Presumption is upon the applicant to discharge.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that although allegations of dowry death have been made against the applicant but post mortem does not indicate the presence of any substance such as kerosene etc. The applicant is in custody since 14th December, 2019 and as per certified copies of order sheet, despite charges having been framed in 2021, no prosecution witness is turning up to provide evidence summons being regularly issued.
7. 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."
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 Ranjeet Kumar 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 :- 15.12.2022
Prabhat
