Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 16 January, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12467 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Gopal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mewa Ram Satyarthi,Pramod Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 18.11.2021 in Case Crime No.405 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Pasgavan, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the marriage of the applicant's son with the deceased took place 11.03.2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the father of the deceased, general allegation of demand of additional dowry and causing cruelty was made against the applicant and other family members, named in the F.I.R, whereas no such demand was ever made by the applicant or his other family members. The entire allegation as levelled in the F.I.R. is false only with the intention to falsely implicate the applicant and his entire family members to harass them.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased was as short tempered lady and always pressurized applicant's son to live separately to some other place, but due to the poor financial condition the son of the applicant refused her demand to live some other place that's why the deceased always lives under depression and on the date of incident she committed suicide by hanging herself in a room and as per post-mortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and there is no other injury found on the body of the deceased except one ligature mark.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is a case of hanging and not the strangulation or murder, and as general role has been assigned to all the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members and submitted that there are general allegations against all the accused persons, therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 18.11.2021 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail. He has further submitted that co-accused Kalawati (mother-in-law of the deceased), having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9907 of 2022, therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that as the daughter of in the informant has died, therefore, bail application may be rejected.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that as per averment made by the learned counsel for the applicant no such demand was ever made by the applicant prior or after the marriage; co-accused Kalawati (mother-in-law of the deceased), having similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court; as per the Modi's Jurisprudence and as per the post-mortem report of the deceased it appears that it is a case of hanging and not the strangulation or murder and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Geeta Mehrotra (supra), this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant- Ram Gopal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-
(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.
(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 16.1.2023
RBS/-
