Allahabad High Court
Sonu Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11743 of 2021
Applicant :- Sonu Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesha Nand Pandey,Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari,Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi,Vijay Nand Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.256 of 2020 under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C., P.S. Malipur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
3. As per contents of first information report, the applicant was the second-wife of the deceased whereas the complainant was the first wife. It is alleged that the deceased was in relationship with the applicant even while married to the complainant. It has been stated that the complainant received information on 28.11.2020 that her husband had been murdered and, therefore, the first information report had been filed against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her. It is submitted that the applicant was in fact married to the deceased and the complainant although being the first wife had already separated from the deceased. It is submitted that there is no motive imputed against the applicant for having murdered her own husband. Attention has been drawn to the recovery memo dated 30.11.2022 with the submission that except for an amount of Rs.2030/-, no other object was recovered from possession of the applicant. It is submitted that the alleged recovery of scissors at the pointing out of the applicant is false and fabricated and amounts only to confessional statement made to the police which even otherwise is inadmissible as evidence. It is stated that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that a pair of scissors was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant which as per the F.S.L. report contained human blood although match between the blood of the deceased and one found on the scissors has not been carried out.
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 the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident from the recovery memo that at that time no scissors is said to have been recovered from the person of the applicant and it is only subsequent that allegation has been made and recovery at the instance of the applicant, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, there does not appear to be any decisive evidence against the applicant, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Sonu Tiwari, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.6.2022
kvg/-
