Allahabad High Court
Ganga Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6728 of 2022
Applicant :- Ganga Ram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy Deptt Of Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Pati Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party - State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.34 of 2022, Sessions Trial No.1682 of 2022, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Pisawan, District - Sitapur.
3. As per contents of first information report, the complainant's daughter is said to have been murdered on 17.01.2022 due to dowry harassment.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a bare perusal of the first information report indicates a general role having been assigned to all members of the family. Attention has also been brought to the postmortem report indicating an oblique ligature mark present around the neck passing obliquely upwards and backwards with a gap of 4.5 cm present on the left side of neck. It is submitted that the postmortem report does not indicate any other external injury. It is thus submitted that there is no occasion for application of any force causing the death of complainant's daughter. It is further submitted that nature of injuries indicated in the postmortem report clearly found to be a case of suicide. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that marriage between the deceased and the applicant's son had taken place barely eight months before lodging of the FIR and as such presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is clearly against the applicant. It is however not denied that there is no other mark of external injury on the body of the deceased.
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 the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, particularly the FIR and the postmortem report, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in the trial, it does appear that there is no other mark of external injury on the body of the deceased. The ligature mark on the neck of the deceased also has a gap of 4.5 cm present which may or may not point to a case of suicide.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, case for grant of bail is made out.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant - Ganga Ram, 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 :- 27.6.2022
KR
