Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Nishad And Another 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. - 31124 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajendra Nishad and Smt. Ramshri
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh,Prabhakar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Kumar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, 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.83 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Fatehpur.
3. The applicants are father in law and mother in law of the deceased and as per allegations levelled in the F.I.R., marriage had taken place between the deceased and son of applicants on 11.12.2020. F.I.R. states that from the very inception, dowry demand was being made by applicants and co-accused and upon unfulfilment of the same, the deceased was being harassed. It has been further stated that a day prior to the incident, brother-in-law of deceased Dilip is said to have sexually molested the deceased which was the primary reason for her to commit suicide.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them only on account the fact that they are father in law and mother in law of the deceased. It is submitted that even as per allegations levelled in the F.I.R., statement regarding the deceased having committed suicide has been made. It is further submitted that as per the postmortem report, there is only a single ligature mark around the neck of the deceased and there is no other bodily injury on the deceased. It has also been submitted that contents of F.I.R. themselves are contradictory in nature and the immediate cause of death cannot be attributed to dowry demand. The applicants are in jail since 02.06.2022.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail with submission that contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate dowry harassment as the primary cause of death of sister of informant. It has also been submitted that the allegations are clearly supported by the statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that delay in lodging F.I.R. is clearly explained since informant was not in the city at the time of incident. While learned counsel for informant submits that charge sheet has been filed against applicants but learned Additional Government Advocate disputes the same upon instructions.
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, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that although allegations of dowry demand has been made in the F.I.R. but at the same time it has also been stated that the deceased had committed suicide, the immediate cause of which as per F.I.R. is sexual molestation by brother in law of the deceased; the postmortem report clearly indicates a single ligature mark around the neck of the deceased without any other bodily injuries. The aspect as such of involvement of the applicants regarding dowry demand is yet to be established during trial by leading evidence,as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicants Rajendra Nishad and Smt. Ramshri, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022
kvg/-
