Allahabad High Court
Ramdayal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43432 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramdayal Prasad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikash Kumar Tiwari,Pulak Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant for causing dowry death of his wife and also disappearance of her dead body.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased took place on 12.06.2011. Photo copy of the invitation card has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the applicant. From the same the offence under Section 304 I.P.C is not made out against the applicant. He has further pointed out the counter affidavit filed by State, wherein the aforesaid marriage has not been denied. He has further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2019. Before the trial court not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. Bailable warrants are being issued even then they are not turning up. Applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 11.08.2019.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
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, 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.
Let the applicant, Ramdayal Prasad, involved in Case Crime No.328 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Hata, District- Kushinagar 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.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
SS
