Allahabad High Court
Smt. Uma Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26914 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Uma Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of applicant 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.887 of 2021 (S.T. No.1007 of 2022), under Sections 302, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 07.11.2021 when the informant's son is said to have gone missing while visiting the house of applicant and co-accused who are the applicant's husband and son. It is stated that the informant's son telephonically informed the informant that he was staying at the house of co-accused Dharmendra Chauhan whereafter the mobile was switched off and when the informant visited the house of applicant, there was freshly dug up mud near their house. FIR has been lodged on the basis of suspicion that the informant's son has been murdered by the applicant and co-accused.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed only under Sections 302 and 201 IPC whereas there is no direct evidence against the applicant of having caused the death of informant's son. It is submitted that even as per statement of eye witness Neha recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the main gist of allegation is on the co-accused Dharmendra Chauhan from whom recovery is also said to have been made. As such, it is submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant who is in jail since 28.11.2021 in which evidence has not yet commenced.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the statement of eye witness Neha clearly indicates the role of applicant and having caused the murder of son of informant.
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 parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that as per postmortem report, there are 10 injuries on the body of deceased and cause of death are indicated as shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries but it is relevant that charge-sheet has been filed only under sections 302 and 201 IPC and even as per statement of alleged eye witness Neha, the main gist of allegation is on co-accused Dharmendra Chauhan.The applicant is in jail since 28.11.2021.
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 Smt. Uma Chauhan, 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 :- 23.11.2022
Subodh/-
