Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh @ Karan vs State Of U.P. on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28559 of 2022
Applicant :- Akhilesh @ Karan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
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 Session Trial No. 1523 of 2021, Case Crime No. 149 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Utraon, District Prayagraj.
3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant was married to the daughter of informant on 6th June, 2020 and after marriage started demanding a motorcycle as dowry. Such demand remaining unfulfilled, the applicant and co-accused are said to have murdered the informant's daughter on 20th May, 2021 by strangulating her.
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 as per statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clearly admitted that there was no demand for dowry at the time of marriage and therefore the demand for subsequent dowry is quite improbable. It is submitted that in his statement, the informant has also admitted the fact that the deceased was not well for quite some time which was the cause of her committing suicide as would be evident from the post mortem report which does not indicate any external injury except for a ligature mark around the neck. It is thus submitted that the allegation of dowry demand is not made out against the applicant. It is submitted that the neighbours and villagers in their statements recorded by the police have clearly stated that the body was hanging in a room which was locked from inside. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 23rd May, 2021 and trial has not yet commenced although as per charge sheet there are fourteen prosecution witnesses.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that applicant is the husband of deceased and death has occasioned within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and as such presumption is upon the applicant to discharge.
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 demand for dowry has been indicated in the F.I.R. but the informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that neither any dowry demand was made nor given at the time of marriage. It is also stated that the deceased was unwell since prior to the date of incident. Allegation of applicant and co-accused strangulating the deceased have been made, which however are not corroborated by the post mortem report. The applicant is in jail since 23rd May, 2021 and as yet trial has not commenced although there are fourteen prosecution witnesses indicated in the charge sheet.
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 Akhilesh @ Karan 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 :- 3.11.2022
Prabhat
