Allahabad High Court
Kunwar Pal vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32566 of 2022
Applicant :- Kunwar Pal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- S.S. Rajput
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.398 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Banna Devi, District Aligarh.
3. The applicant is the father in law of the deceased and as per allegations made in the F.I.R., the deceased and son of applicant had married on 08.05.2019 whereafter she was continuously harassed on account of dowry demand and upon its unfulfilment, was done to death on 05.06.2021.
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 father in law of the deceased. It is submitted that as per postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained due to which viscera was preserved but in the viscera report also, it has been indicated that no poisonous substance was found. It is submitted that subsequently a Medical Board was constituted which gave the opinion that no obvious cause of death could be established and remote possibility of heart attack could not be ruled out. It is further submitted that as per the postmortem report, there is no visible external injury on the body as such it is submitted that the allegation of dowry demand is clearly not made out against applicant. It is also submitted that co-accused, mother in law of the deceased Chandrawati @ Virma Devi has been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No.31136 of 2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that death has taken place within a period of seven years of marriage due to unnatural causes and as such ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. are clearly made out and even otherwise presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act would also be against applicant.
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 allegation of death having occasioned due to unfulfilled dowry demand has been made but as per postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained; the viscera report also does not indicate any poisonous substance within the body; the subsequent Medical Board's opinion indicates that there is no obvious cause of death discernible and that the death may have been caused due to heart attack; F.I.R. also appears to have been lodged with considerable delay of one month for which no cogent explanation is forthcoming; the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2022 and co-accused Chandrawati @ Virma Devi has been admitted to bail by this Court as indicated herein above, 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 Kunwar Pal, 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 :- 19.10.2022
kvg/-
