Allahabad High Court
Ramprashad Chaurasiya vs State Of U.P. on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45890 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramprashad Chaurasiya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap 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, as well as learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.119 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Uruwa Bazar, District Gorakhpur.
3. As per contents of first information report, marriage between the deceased and applicant's son had taken place on 13.03.2019 whereafter she was continuously harassed on account of dowry demand and due to its unfulfillment, was done to death on 12.08.2021.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of fact that he is father-in-law of deceased. It is submitted that as per post-mortem report, there is no external injury on the body of deceased although viscera report clearly indicates death having occasioned due to intake of aluminium phosphide. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipal versus State of Haryana reported in (2003)1 SCC 169 to submit that intake of aluminium phosphide can be only voluntarily or forcibly and it cannot be given deceitfully and has as such sought to submit that the death was in fact suicidal. It is submitted that even otherwise only general allegations of dowry demand have been made on the applicant. It is also submitted that co-accused Sukhraji Devi who is the mother-in-law has already been admitted to bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23317 of 2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that death has occasioned unnaturally within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and as such ingredients of section 304-B IPC are clearly made out and as such presumption would be upon the applicant to discharge.
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, it appears that general allegations of dowry demand have been levelled against the applicant without any specific role being assigned to him. Death has also occasioned due to intake of aluminium phosphide but as per post-mortem report, there does not appear to be any external bodily injury on the deceased. Co-accused, namely, Sukhraji Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court as indicated herinabove. The applicant is of advanced age and he is in jail since 13.04.2022. 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 Ramprashad Chaurasiya,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 his, 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 his in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
Subodh/-
