Pradeep Chauhan vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5912 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6862 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Singh Chauhan,Adarsh Pratap Singh,Nagendra Mohan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhinav Srivastava,Manisha Trivedi,Rahul Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Shri Nagandra Mohan, Advocate assisted by Shri Salil Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Manisha Trivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, Shushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The applicant,Pradeep Chauhan, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 217 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant who is husband of the deceased has falsely been implicated in the present case. No such incident as alleged by the prosecution in the present case took place and general allegation against the applicant and his family members was levelled by the complainant regarding demand of dowry. It was also stated in the first information report that due to the pressure and demand of dowry the daughter of the complainant either committed suicide or the accused persons have killed her.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the marriage between the deceased and applicant took place in the year 2016 and as per the case set up by the prosecution in the FIR that from the date of marriage and till the date of alleged incident the demand of dowry was continued and not stopped by the in laws of the deceased whereas in the FIR no article was specified nor any demand of money was mentioned. Only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant and his family members.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the post mortem report of the deceased the cause of death is asphyxia and shock due to anti mortem hanging. There is one injury which is mentioned as Ligature mark in front (below chin and above thyroid) and no other injury except ligature mark is mentioned in the post mortem report.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased herself committed suicide because of minor dispute between her and the applicant (husband), as she was short tempered lady and was insisting the applicant to live separately from his family members which the applicant denied, therefore she was always under pressure.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that from the perusal of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses it appears that general allegation has been levelled against all accused persons named in the FIR regarding demand of dowry. No specific allegation against the applicant has been made for demand of dowry and regarding which article the demand has been made.

Prior to the alleged incident no complaint regarding demand of dowry was either made by the deceased or complainant to any of the authorities or to any of her relatives.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that coaccused namely Sukha Devi (mother in law of the deceased) and Neelam (sister in law of the deceased) who were similarly circumstanced and identical role assigned, have already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 8.7.2020 in Bail No. 3640 of 2020. Therefore, the case of the present applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the coaccused, who have already been enlarged on bail, as such the bail application of the present applicant may also be considered sympathetically and he should also be granted bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2019 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 30.11.2019 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage and she was being subjected to cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that according to the postmortem report of the deceased except one ligature mark around the neck, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased and general allegations have been made against the mother and sister of the applicant have also been granted bail, who are similarly circumstanced to the applicant, and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Pradeep Chauhan, involved in Case Crime No. 217 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

Order Date :- 5.7.2022

GSY