Allahabad High Court
Suggi @ Umesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 21 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25744 of 2022
Applicant :- Suggi @ Umesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh
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. 413 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kokhraj, District Kaushambi.
3. Applicant is husband and as per contents of FIR was married to the deceased, daughter of first informant, six years prior to the incident but continuous demand for dowry was being made and upon its unfulfilment, is said to have assaulted the deceased on 24th June, 2020 and was compelled to take of poisonous substance due to which she passed away.
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 marriage between the parties had taken place six years ago and they had two children from marriage. It is submitted that there were certain complication in child birth due to which the deceased was in a continuous unhealthy state and is the cause of suicide which is amply borne out by viscera report indicating intake of insectiside but as per post mortem report there is no external injury on the body of deceased. Attention has been drawn to certified copy of deposition of first informant as P.W.1 to submit that he has not supported the prosecution version due to which he was declared hostile. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration and as an under trail since 19th December, 2021 with evidence of only first prosecution evidence having been completed out of total 8 prosecution witnesses and therefore 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 death having occasioned due to intake of insecticide. 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 pertaining to dowry have been levelled against applicant and general allegations pertaining to dowry demand have been indicated in the F.I.R. but have not been supported by the first informant as P.W.1 during his deposition due to which he was declared hostile. Post mortem report also does not indicate any external injury on the body of deceased. Applicant is under incarceration as an under trial since 19th December, 2021 with seven more prosecution witnesses yet to be examined.
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 Suggi @ Umesh 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 :- 21.12.2022
Prabhat
