Om Prakash Vishwakarma vs State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 14545 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12153 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Om Prakash Vishwakarma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Om Prakash Vishwakarma for grant of bail in Case Crime No.147 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the marriage of the applicant's son with the deceased was solemnized on 27.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals without any dowry and the averments made in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated, even though a general allegation has been levelled in the F.I.R. regarding demand of additional dowry and cash and causing cruelty with the deceased. The applicant has never demanded any cash amount or any additional dowry with the deceased or her parents nor caused any cruelty, even though prior to the present F.I.R. no any prior application or F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant or any other family members regarding the allegation of causing cruelty or demand of additional dowry, even though if any dowry is being given, the applicant cannot be the beneficiary of the said additional dowry.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is living separately in another house and the deceased and her husband were living in another house and in this regard, a certificate issued by Gram Pradhan was filed os Anneuxre-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased and son of the applicant solemnized love marriage and the relation of the applicant's son with the deceased were not cordial. The deceased was living under pressure, because of action of her husband's parents, as the parents were not accepting the said marriage, ultimately on the date of incident, she committed suicide by hanging herself on the roof of the room.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Except one ligature mark of size 22.0 c.m. x 1.0 c.m. there is no other injury found on the person of the victim. In support of his argument that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the extract of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, wherein definition of hanging has been described. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging. He further submits that as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is a case of hanging and not the murder or strangulation.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegation regarding demand of additional dowry and causing cruelty is false and fabricated, as the marriage of the applicant's son with the deceased was solemenized without dowry, even though if any demand was made, the applicant cannot be the beneficiary of the alleged dowry. He further submits that no prior complaint by the deceased or by her parents was ever made to any of the authority regarding demand of additional dowry or causing cruelty.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the name of the elder son of the applicant was dropped by the Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet was submitted only against the applicant's son and wife and the applicant, thus the allegation in the F.I.R. appears to be false and fabricated.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.

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. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 29 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 25.04.2022 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and she should also be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the general allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against all the accused including the applicant and the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and is not the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry; cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging, except one ligature mark of size 22.0 c.m. x 1.0 c.m. there is no other injury found on the person of the victim; as per the definition of hanging given in Modi's Jurisprudence and the postmortem report of the deceased are identical, it appears a case of committing suicide by hanging and not the murder or strangulation and also considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Om Prakash Vishwakarma involved in Case Crime No.147 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, 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.

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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.

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 20.10.2022

Arvind