Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39343 of 2022
Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kalpana Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by earned Additional Government Advocate is taken on record.
1A. 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.336 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad.
3. The applicant is husband of deceased and as per contents of F.I.R., had married the daughter of informant on 31.1.2021 whereafter she was harassed on account of dowry demand and upon its unfulfilment was murdered on 02.08.2021 by hanging.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of fact that he is husband of deceased. It is submitted that in fact the deceased was quite short-tempered and only on account of a quarrel has committed suicide as would be borne out by postmortem report. It is submitted that during course of trial, none of the witnesses of fact such as P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have supported the prosecution version and were thereafter declared hostile. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 03.09.2021 and as yet four prosecution witnesses have been examined whereas there are a total of 39 prosecution witnesses and as such there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact situation.
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, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although general allegations of dowry demand have been made in the F.I.R. but none of the prosecution witnesses of fact as P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have supported the prosecution case. There are 39 prosecution witnesses and as yet only four have been able to give evidence while applicant is in jail since 03.09.2021 and as such there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. 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 Dharmendra 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 :- 2.11.2022
kvg/-
