Allahabad High Court
Jagdish vs State Of U.P. on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34707 of 2022
Applicant :- Jagdish
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dur Vijay Singh,Qamrul Hasan
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.184 of 2020 under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C., 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Naraini, District Banda.
3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 10.05.2020 at about 5.00 a.m. when the informant was given information that her daughter had passed away due to burn injuries, barely three months from the marriage. It has been stated that the death took place on account of dowry harassment.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased who passed away due to accidental burn injuries and not on account of any deliberate act on part of the applicant. It is submitted that there is no explanation for the delay of about five months in lodging the F.I.R. although the informant was present at the time of inquest. It is submitted that there was no complaint prior to death with regard to any dowry demand having been made either by applicant or his family members. It is submitted that inquest was held on the date of death when no such allegation was made against applicant while informant was also present. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after deliberation. Attention has also been drawn to medical document indicating that the applicant had brought the deceased to the Hospital for treatment. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2020 with no early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that the postmortem report clearly indicates deliberately fire having been set to the deceased since the smell of kerosene is indicated. It is, however, admitted that there is no criminal history of applicant.
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 F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly without any explanation for the same. It also appears that the informant was a witness to the inquest but no statement had been recorded at that time with allegation of any previous dowry demand. The medical document also makes it seen that it was the applicant being husband of deceased who had brought her to the hospital for purposes of treatment. The applicant is in jail since 17.11.2020 and there is no hope for 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 Jagdish, 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 :- 12.9.2022
kvg/-
