Gulveer vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 14862 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12372 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Gulveer
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

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

The applicant, Gulveer has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1062/2014, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhila, District Hardoi.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is Cousin brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. He has nothing to do with the allegations made in the F.I.R. He has been implicated only with intention to harass him and his family members as he is brother-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned against the applicant for demand dowry and cruelty. A general allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty has been leveled against all the other co-accused, who are named in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is living in a separate house from the deceased and the deceased and her husband were residing separately and the house of the applicant is 300 meters far from the house of the deceased. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the applicant has annexed copy of his ration card, which is filed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant was not present in the village at the time of incident.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the allegations made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry the applicant is not beneficiary of the said demand. The entire allegation is false. No such demand was ever made by the applicant herein.

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 6.0 c.m. x 2.0 c.m. and there are two other injuries which are on the right side of the chest and lower part of the right ankle of leg, which could be caused when the deceased was brought down from the clamp from where she hanged herself. 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 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 regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 15.09.2022 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 the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering that the applicant was living separately and he has nothing to do with the affairs of the deceased and her husband; the applicant is not beneficiary of the said demand; as per post-mortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging; except one ligature mark of size 6.0 c.m. x 2.0 c.m. and there are two other injuries which are on the right side of the chest and lower part of the right ankle of leg, which could be caused when the deceased was brought down from the clamp from where she hanged herself and 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 as well as 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 cases of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. 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- Gulveer involved in Case Crime No. 1062/2014, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhila, District Hardoi 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 :- 21.10.2022

GSY/Arvind