Allahabad High Court
Abdul Rashid vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38021 of 2022
Applicant :- Abdul Rashid
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Istiyaq Ali,Ali 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.122 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi.
3. As per contents of first information report, the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and has been allegedly instrumental in murder of the informant's daughter for purposes of dowry demand. It has been alleged that marriage between the deceased and applicant's son took place in the year 2020 whereafter various dowry demands were made but upon their unfulfilment, the deceased was ill-treated, which has subsequently occasioned in her demise.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased but no specific allegation has been made against him regarding his involvement in the alleged crime. It is submitted that in fact it is the applicant who informed the police with regard to demise of his daughter-in-law. It is submitted that even during the inquest, the family members of the deceased were witnesses but no allegation pertaining to dowry demand was made. It is further submitted that although the F.I.R. states that the deceased was done to death due to beating and attack with an iron rod, but the postmortem report does not indicate any external injury on body of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is only one ligature mark indicated in postmortem report with a gaping of 5 c.m. at the back of neck, which is suggestive of suicide rather than murder. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20.04.2022 and as yet the trial has not yet commenced although charge sheet was filed in May, 2022.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that death of daughter-in-law of applicant had occasioned within a period of two years from the date of marriage with allegations of severe ill-treatment and therefore presumption clearly lies upon the applicant to discharge his burden.
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 from a perusal of the postmortem report that only a ligature mark is seen around the neck of deceased without any external bodily injury, a perusal of the F.I.R. along with statement of informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not level any specific allegations against applicant, the inquest also is silent with regard to previous dowry demand, the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and is in jail since 20.4.2022 with trial yet to commence, 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 Abdul Rashid, 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 :- 13.9.2022
kvg/-
