Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31745 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Puskar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.154 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to have subjected his wife to cruelty within seven years of her marriage for demand of dowry and put her to fire on 17.05.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Two witnesses have been examined in court by the prosecution. PW-1 is the first informant Bablu, who has resiled from his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and has been declared hostile by the public prosecutor and cross-examined as such. Nothing incriminating has been indicated in the said cross-examination rather he has completely denied the allegations in the FIR. Learned counsel has further stated that PW-2 is the witness of recovery of a plastic can of kerosene oil and he has also resiled from his statement and has been declared hostile by the public prosecutor. Learned counsel has further stated that ingredients of Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are not attracted as having not been fulfilled. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.05.2017 i.e. about more than five years. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Much reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court passed in the case of Saudan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in 2021 SCC OnLine 3259. Para 7 of the said judgement reads as follows:-
"7. We may note that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail."
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the two witnesses have been declared hostile and the applicant has been incarcerated in jail since more than last five years.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Pradeep Sharma, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 IPC.
(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022
Ravi Kant
