Allahabad High Court
Sachin vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165210
Reserved On:- 08.08.2023
Delivered On:- 17.08.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33627 of 2023
Applicant :- Sachin
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Shri Hamendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant;Shri Prateek Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
2. There is allegation in the FIR that daughter of informant was married to the applicant on 02.12.2022 and Rs. 20 lakhs was given in dowry but Rs. 10 lakhs and a car was being further demanded by the family members of her matrimonial home. On 22.06.2022, they strangulated his eight months old pregnant daughter to death.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is posted in Indian Army as Hawaldar at Sagar (Madhya Pradesh). On 02.06.2022, he received a phone call that his wife was ill and she was taken to the hospital. The applicant was not present on the place of incident. After receiving information of incident on 02.06.2022, he took leave with effect from 02.06.2022 to 16.07.2022 and he rushed home and was directed to rejoin the unit on 17.07.2022. He has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant and has submitted that the death of the deceased was caused by exerting pressure on her neck. Apart from that, four injuries were also found on her body, including traumatic swelling and abrasion. He has submitted that bail application of co-accused, Jagvir Singh, father-in-law of the deceased has already been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court on 20.03.2023.
5. Learned A.G.A has submitted that even if it is assumed that the applicant was not in the house at the time of alleged incident he has been implicated under section 120-B IPC also. He is liable to be awarded same punishment as the other co-accused. He is husband of the deceased and liable to explain how his wife was murdered by his family members in a matrimonial home in very short span of marriage.
6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that applicant was not in his house when deceased was subjected to cruelty and she died. He immediately took leave and rushed to his house. While rejecting bail application of the co-accused, Jagvir Singh, this Court has recorded finding that he was the only male member in the house and hence bail was denied to him. It appears that while the applicant was posted away his family members caused death of his wife. Army man cannot keep his wife along at most of the places and in their absence dispute takes between women and other members of the house.
7. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 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 Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.
8. Let the applicant, Sachin, involved in Case Crime No. 76 of 2022, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 304-B, 316, 120-B IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Pisawa, District- Aligarh, be released on bail on her 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 not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against his under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
9. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.
12. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days.
Order Date :- 17.08.2023
Rohit
