Allahabad High Court
Surdeen vs State Of U.P Through Its Principal ... on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59457 of 2022
Applicant :- Surdeen
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary (Home)
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Mangal Tiwari,Vindhyachal Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri N. K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegation in the first information report are absolutely false. The applicant was married to the deceased on 25.11.2017 and twin sons were born from the wedlock. The applicant is employed in Indian Army and was posted in remote area. The deceased wanted to live with him which was not possible. She had quarrel with the family members of matrimonial home and also with the applicant. The applicant has been generally implicated. Except ligature mark on her neck, no injury was found on the person of deceased. Applicant is in jail since 03.05.2022. His parents have already been enlarged on bail. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant is responsible for death of his wife for whatever reason. He is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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.
Let the applicant, Surdeen, involved in Case Crime No.144 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad 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 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 him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
SS
