Allahabad High Court
Shahrukh vs State Of U.P. on 22 December, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46736 of 2022
Applicant :- Shahrukh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manjeet Kumar,D.M.Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjai Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
1A. 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.76 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar.
3. Applicant is husband and as per contents of FIR was married to the deceased one and half years prior to the date of incident whereafter continuous demand for dowry was being made and upon its unfulfillment, allegedly hanged his wife to death on 31.03.2022.
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 he is husband of deceased. It is submitted that only general allegations of dowry demand have been made in the FIR which are not corroborated by the first informant in his deposition as P.W.1. It is submitted that even the post-mortem report does not corroborate the allegations levelled against him while the applicant is in jail since 06.04.2021 with evidence of only P.W.1 having been completed out of a total of 29 prosecution witnesses as per charge-sheet.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that applicant being the husband of deceased, presumption is upon him to discharge.
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 the allegations of dowry demand have been made in the FIR but the first informant as P.W.1 has not supported the same and has indicated that the deceased who is sister of first informant committed suicide since the applicant refused to stay with her in Agra as such presumption against the applicant is sought to be discharged in the aforesaid manner. Post-mortem report also does not indicate any external injury on the body of deceased except for an interrupted ligature mark around the neck. Applicant is in jail since 06.04.2022 with 28 prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined. As such, there does not appears to be any hope of early conclusion of trial.
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, Shahrukh, 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 :- 22.12.2022
Subodh/-
