Munna Khan vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4993 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40142 of 2019
 
Applicant :- Munna Khan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Asthana,Adya Prasad Tewari,Manish Dev,Santosh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Adya Prasad Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant and sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Munna Khan under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2015 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 326-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station- Navbasta, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 05.08.2019.

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 25.05.2015 has been lodged against the applicant and 6 other family members of the applicant including the husband of the victim by victim stating therein that the marriage of the victim Reshma Siddqui was solemnized with Sahibe Alam @ Sabir on 07.04.2014 but the applicant and other family members of the applicant were not satisfied with the dowry which has been given by the victim's parents in her marriage and they demanded money as additional dowry, due to non fulfillment of their demand the applicant and other co-accused persons committed marpit with her. It is further alleged that the husband of the victim has relationship with some other girls and on being refusal, her husband committed marpeet with her and threatened to get married again. On 26.10.2014 applicant, husband of the victim and mother-in-law of the victim poured acid on the victim. Due to which acid fell on her clothes and she saved her life by entering her room inside the house, throwing off the clothes and changing other clothes and told her mother and brothers about the incident. After that in-law's of the victim threw her out of her in-laws' house. They demanded Rs 50,000/- and a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle and several other allegations have been made in relation to molestation, filthy language and dire consequences but no other date has been mentioned with regard to other offence committed against the victim.

Before lodging the first information report, medical examination of the victim was conducted on 26.11.2014; after about one month of the incident first information report has been lodged after 7 months of the incident. The statement of the victim was recorded on 16.06.2015 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and second statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 04.12.2016. After recording the statement of other prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant and other five other named persons on 05.12.2016. The applicant was arrested on 21.07.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is father-in-law of the victim and aged about 83 years. It is further submitted that medical examination of the victim was conducted after one month of the incident in which doctor opined that the injury was superficial to deep burn by acid. It is further submitted that role of extortion has been assigned to the present applicant. The main role of pouring acid has been assigned to co-accused Sahibe Alam @ Sabir (husband of the victim). It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after 7 months of the incident on the basis of same set of allegations. The Investigating Officer has exonerated the co-accused Mohsin. It is further submitted that co-accused Sahibe Alam @ Sabir is in judicial custody.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) The applicant is father-in-law of the victim and aged about 83 years;

(b) The role of extortion has been assigned to the present applicant;

(c) Medical examination of the victim was conducted after one month of the incident in which doctor opined that the injury was superficial to deep burn by acid;

(d) The first information report has been lodged after 7 months of the incident; on the basis of same set of allegation co-accused Mohsin examined by the Investigating Officer;

(f) Co-accused Sahibe Alam @ Sabir is in judicial custody;

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Munna Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

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.

Order Date :- 7.6.2022/Ishan