Atul Singh vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 6212 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10103 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Atul Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tripathi,Harish Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Sri Anil K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv Ram Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2021, under Section 498-A and 304 B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case by the informant. The entire prosecution story is false. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, took place.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the relation with the applicant and her deceased wife was cordial and they were living happily, but the wife was short tempered and was very much influenced from this brother and there was some money transaction between the applicant and the in-laws and the applicant gave money to the brother-in-law for treatment of father-in-law and mother-in-law. He further submits that when the demand was made for that reason the wife was having grudge with the applicant and she was under mental pressure and when repeated demand were being made by the applicant she threatened to the applicant that she will commit suicide by hanging herself

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the name of the applicant along with her mother and father was falsely implicated by the informant in the First Information Report and general allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons named in the First Information Report regarding demand of additional dowry and also causing cruelty to the deceased, who is the wife of the applicant, who committed suicide by hanging herself in the room.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Investigating Officer after investigation did not find any material against other accused, who are father and mother of the applicant and their names were dropped and only applicant was chage-sheeted because he was the husband of the deceased, whereas similar and identical role has been assigned against all the co-accused, who are named in the First Information Report.

Learned counsel for the applicant further drawn the attention of this court towards the post-mortem report of the deceased, whereas only one injury was shown, which is as under:

"legature mark around the neck of size 3.4cm x 2 cm with gap of posteriorly 5 cm below from chin, 3 cm from left ear 4 cm below from right ear underneath tissue white and glistering parchament like structure seen."

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per doctor opinion, the cause of death is asphyxia as result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no other injury found on the person of the deceased, therefore, it is clear cut a case of suicide by the deceased, who is the wife of the applicant and the fact of financial transaction was also stated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.04.2021 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist 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 revisionist 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 22.04.2021 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. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant is involved in heinous crime and his bail application may be rejected but did not dispute this fact that the name of the father and mother of the applicant, who have been assigned similar role to the applicant was dropped in the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicant.

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 in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering that the cause of death is asphyxia as result of ante-mortem hanging and in the post-mortem only one injury was found and there is no other injury found on the person of the deceased and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and the view taken by the Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), 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- Atul Singh involved in Case Crime No. 76 of 2021, under Section 498-A and 304 B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh be released 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 during trial, 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, 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.

(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 merits of the case.

Order Date :- 7.7.2022

Arvind