Chintaram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 18287 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47465
 
Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8632 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Chintaram
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalu Prasad Bhatt
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sourabh Mishra,Vashu Deo Mishra,Vasu Dev Mishra
 
Connected with
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7263 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Shivdayal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalu Prasad Bhatt
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vashu Deo Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Counter affidavit filed by the informant/ complainant in both these cases are taken on record.

Heard Shri Lalu Prasad Bhatt, learned counsel for the accused/applicants in both the cases as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants- Chitaram in Bail No. 8632 of 2023 and Shivdayal in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7263 of 2023 for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 54 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich, during trial.

The above mentioned bail applications are pertaining to the same crime no. and for the purpose of convenience, both the bail applications are being disposed of by a common judgment/ order.

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants while drawing attention of this Court towards the First Information Report, statement of the informant and brother of the deceased submits that it is a case of false implication and the involvement of the applicant in this case has been made only on account of the fact that earlier a criminal case was lodged by the brother of the applicant against the accused persons, who are father and son, with regard to the abduction of his sister (deceased), however after thorough investigation the final report / closure report was filed therein and the allegations as levelled against the applicant were not found truthful in the investigation.

It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicants, so far as this case is concerned are to the tune that after release of the deceased in favour of the informant of this case the accused persons were annoying the deceased by hurling stigmatic things against her and it is on this basis the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself on 21.2.2023 at 1.30 P.M. in the house of the informant.

It is vehemently submitted that no specific incident has been narrated either in the First Information Report or in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which may establish a direct link / nexus between the alleged act and commission of suicide by the deceased and the First Information Report has been lodged on account of an earlier enmity exiting between the two families.

It is further submitted that as the deceased had committed suicide in the house of the informant, no liability/ responsibility may be fastened on the applicants to explain the circumstances, under which the deceased has committed suicide and even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face the abetment is missing.

It is further submitted that the applicants are in jail in this case since 22.2.2023 and prior to lodging of the earlier FIR under Sections 363, 366 IPC the applicants were not having any criminal antecedents, however, in that case the final report has been submitted. The charge sheet in this case has also been submitted and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicants after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicants.

Shri Vashu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the applicants on the ground that the deceased has committed suicide only on account of stigmatic behaviour of the applicants towards the deceased. It is also submitted that final report submitted in the earlier case lodged by the brother of the deceased against the applicants, is nothing but an opinion of the Investigating Officer and a protest petition against that final report is pending and a final decision is to be taken by the Magistrate. It is also submitted that the applicants are musclemen and if the facility of bail is granted to them it is on the cards and apprehended that they will influence the informant and witnesses of this case and thus the fair trial would not be possible before the trial court and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case they are not entitled to be released on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that prior to the instant case an FIR was lodged against one of the applicant, namely, Chintaram by informant Kaushal Verma (brother of the deceased) pertaining to the abduction of the deceased by the instant applicant- Chintaram. However, it is mentioned in the earlier FIR that while leaving her maternal home the deceased had taken her Aadhar Card, Labour Card and other documents including some jewellery. After recovery of the deceased/ victim in earlier case, her statement was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., an extract of which has been brought on record by learned counsel for the informant/ complainant in his counter affidavit, wherein she had stated to have accompanied with Chintaram on her own volition. However, it is stated in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had over heard a conversation between Chintaram, Shivdayal and one Satish pertaining to the fact that they were talking of selling her to someone else. It appears to be an admitted situation that a final report was filed by the Investigating Officer in that case. It is also an admitted situation that after recording of the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. her custody was given to her family members and since then she was living with them. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself in her maternal house. The allegation of teasing her has been levelled against the applicant. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that no specific incident has been shown and a direct link/ nexus which is required to establish abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian penal code is evidently missing and in absence of same, the penal Section 306 IPC may not be invoked against the applicants. They are in jail in this case since 22.2.2023. The only case against them was pertaining to the earlier FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased and the same has adequately been explained and Final Report has been submitted therein. The apprehension of the complainant/ informant pertaining to the influence which may be caused by the applicants, if released on bail maybe taken care of by placing adequate conditions and on this score alone, keeping in view the clean records of the applicants, the facility of bail may not be denied to them.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicants- Chintaram and Shivdayal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicants after their release from prison shall file an undertaking before the trial court, with regard to the fact that they will not make any communication either with the informant or any of the prosecution witnesses, whose names have been cited in the charge sheet.

(ii) The applicants shall not contact the informant or any of the prosecution witnesses either directly, indirectly or through any Social media Platform.

(iii) The applicants shall not indulge into any criminal activity.

(iv) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on all the dates fixed as and when required by the trial court and shall not seek any adjournment especially on the dates when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

(v) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(vi) The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Observation may not construe as an opinion on merits.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 / Muk