Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36499 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashish Goyal 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.603 of 2021 under Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor.
3. As per contents of FIR, applicant is husband of deceased and as per allegations levelled in the F.I.R. had married the daughter of informant on 10th December, 2020 whereafter she was continuously harassed on account of dowry demand and upon its unfulfilment, was done to death on 28th September, 2021.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of the fact that he is husband of deceased. It is submitted that although allegation of dowry demand has been made in the F.I.R. but the same has not been supported by the informant in his deposition as P.W.1 wherein he has reslied and was thereafter declared hostile. It is submitted that the post mortem also does not corroborate the allegations levelled in F.I.R. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 18th October, 2021 and as yet evidence of only first P.W. witness has been completed although there are total of 12 prosecution witnesses and as such there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that contents of F.I.R. as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly make out a case against the applicant but does not dispute the factual situation of P.W.1 becoming hostile.
6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that although allegations pertaining to dowry demand have been made in the F.I.R. but the same have not been supported by informant himself in his deposition wherein he was declared hostile. It appears that evidence of only one prosecution witness has been completed and there are total of 11 more witnesses yet to be examined while the applicant is in jail since 18th October, 2021.
7. 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."
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant Sanjeev Kumar 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 :- 1.11.2022
Prabhat
