Dharamraj vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5389 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5706 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Dharamraj
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Ramakar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Diwakar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The applicant, Dharamraj, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. The complainant has lodged the F.I.R. with the allegation that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the applicant about three years ago according to Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage sufficient amount of dowry was given, but the in-laws of her daughter were not satisfied with the dowry given. After marriage due to less dowry given she was being put in mental agony and was being maltreated and her daughter was facing brunt of her in-laws in her matrimonial house continuously from the date of her marriage. On 22.03.2020 the accused persons killed her daughter by hanging her.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that version of F.I.R. is totally false and baseless and depends upon concocted story, as such, no occurrence ever took place as alleged in the F.I.R. The applicant is innocent.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during course of investigation the statement of complainant, Smt. Badkanni has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has made general allegations against all the accused persons and no specific allegation has been made against any of the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that according to the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. There is only one ligature mark, one abraded contusion and one abrasion on the person of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that infact the deceased was under some mental pressure, therefore, she committed suicide by hanging herself and she sustained two injuries during her hanging time.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that for the last 2-3 months before the incident there was some dispute between the deceased and her mother-in-law regarding domestic work and the deceased was insisting the applicant to live separately, but the applicant was avoiding the same, therefore, she got annoyed and under mental pressure she committed suicide.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Ram Naresh and Chhotki @ Nankai, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 22.10.2020 and 04.11.2020 passed in Bail Nos. 7791 and 6204, both of the year, 2020, respectively.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as the same and general allegation has been levelled and no specific allegation has been made against all the accused persons, and the case of the applicant is not on worse footing than that of the other co-accused, who are father and mother of the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by this Court sympathetically.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.05.2020 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 07.05.2020 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 and one abraded contusion and one abrasion, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased and general allegations have been made against all the accused persons and father and mother of the applicant have also been granted bail, who are similarly circumstanced as 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, Dharamraj, involved in Case Crime No. 80 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich, 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 :- 27.6.2022

Mustaqeem