Allahabad High Court
Pankaj vs State Of U.P. on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13833 of 2019
Applicant :- Pankaj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Dhiresh Kumar,N/A,Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Raghavendra Pati Tripathi,Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava
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.141 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.Chhatta, District Agra.
3. The applicant is husband of the deceased and as per contents of first information report, marriage had taken place on 04.08.2018 whereafter the deceased was continuously harassed for dowry and upon its unfulfilment, was murdered within a period of four months from the date of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of his being husband of the deceased. It is submitted that only general allegations of dowry demand has been made in the F.I.R. without any specific assertion with regard to same. It is further submitted that the deceased was in fact unhappy with the marriage itself and, therefore, has committed suicide which can be substantiated from the fact that the postmortem report does not indicate any external injury on body of the deceased with only external injury being a ligature mark around the neck and as such it is submitted that presumption against applicant is readily explained. It is further submitted that the applicant in in jail since 04.08.2018 and as yet evidence of only two prosecution witnesses has been completed whereas there are a total of 12 prosecution witnesses. As such, it is submitted that there is no hope of any early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that the contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate that an unnatural death of wife of applicant has taken place within a period of four months from the date of her marriage and as such presumption was upon him to be discharged.
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, it appears that general allegations of dowry demand has been made in the F.I.R. without any specific assertion with regard to same; postmortem report indicates only a ligature mark around the neck of deceased without any external injury on the body; the applicant in in jail since 04.08.2018 with evidence of ten prosecution witnesses yet to be completed; there does not appear to be any hope of early conclusion of trial, 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 Pankaj, 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 :- 31.10.2022
kvg/-
