Arjun vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3885 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8479 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Arjun
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Arjun under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 307, 326A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Kakore District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 07, Bulandshahar vide order dated 07.01.2022.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 08.09.2021 has been lodged by the father of the victim against the applicant and four other named family members including the husband of the victim stating therein that the marriage of his daughter, Gudiya was solemnized with the co-accused Sanjeev on 29.07.2020 and he gave sufficient dowry in her marriage according to his capacity and strength. Instead of this, in-laws of his daughter started demanding additional dowry. Consequently, they started to torture and harass her physically and mentally time to time for failing to get their additional dowry demands. After that in February, 2021, she delivered a baby boy on whose birth, he gave clothes and Rs. 21,000/-. Even then they were not happy and she was being maltreated for fulfilling their additional demands of a Car and Rs. 3 lacs by the co-accused Sanjeev and his family members. While his daughter expressed her inability for fulfilling these demands, she was kept starved and hungry. On 01.09.2021, he received a phone call from in-laws of his daughter that she fell ill and should reached immediately at Sanskar Hospital, Bulandshahar. When the first informant reached at Hospital, his daughter was in comma stage and all the members of her in-laws left her and ran away hanky panky. While his daughter got consciousness, she stated that she was forced to drink acid intentionally to cause her death by the co-accused Sanjeev and other family members including the applicant.

After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 08.09.2021 and the Statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 22.11.2021. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and four other named family members . The applicant was arrested on 09.09.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive as well as matrimonial accord. It is further submitted that the applicant is elder brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim. It is further submitted that general allegation demand of dowry and administering acid has been levelled against the applicant. It is further submitted that no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant. It is further incriminating article has been collected by the investigating officer during investigation. It is further submitted that first informant Mahipal, P.W.1 and Gudiya, P.W.2 have been declared hostile and both have not supported the prosecution case before the trial court. It is further submitted that the co-accused Rajni, on the identical role has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50064 of 2021 vide order dated 21.02.2022.

He has next argued that the applicant no criminal history. If the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is not convicted in cognizable offence by any court.

Per contra, learned AGA 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 FIR 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) applicant is elder brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim;

(b) marriage of victim, Gudiya was solemnized with the co-accused Sanjiv on 29.07.2020;

(c) general allegation demand of dowry and administering acid has been levelled against the applicant;

(d) no specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant;

(e) first informant Mahipal, P.W.1 and Gudiya, P.W2 have been declared hostile and both have not supported the prosecution case before the trial court;

(f) co-accused Rajni, on the identical role has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50064 of 2021 vide order dated 21.02.2022

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, Arjun 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 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/endeavour 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 alongwith 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 :- 24.5.2022

aks