Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Chandra 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. - 46672 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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 Case Crime No.179 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh.
3. As per prosecution story, the son of the applicant was married with the daughter of the informant on 29.11.2021. The applicant along with other co-accused persons are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of one gold ring and motorcycle as dowry, thereupon on being unable to get the demand fulfilled, they have stated to have caused the death of the daughter-in-law of the applicant by hanging on 5.5.2022.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant, who is a old person, has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and has nothing to do with the said offence. The main accused i.e. husband of deceased namely Yogesh is in jail. Co-accused Gaytri has been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide Bail Application No.37772 of 2022. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.5.2022 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that all the family members live within the precincts of the same house and there is nothing on record to suggest that she lives separately. They have also not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
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, 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 Mahesh Chandra, 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/-
