Allahabad High Court
Suman Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9802 of 2022
Applicant :- Suman Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home
Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.
This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant as his first bail application has been rejected vide order dated 22.06.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9740 of 2020 by this Court.
Heard Shri Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Suman Kumar for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 156 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Barasagwar, District-Unnao during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged with false and concocted facts and, in fact, the applicant was working at Maharashtra (Pune) and the deceased (his wife) was living with his family members at his home and it was on 28.05.2019, his mother died and he arrived at his home for the performance of her last rites. However, when he planned to go back to Pune, the deceased pressurised him to keep her with him at Pune which, on account of the critical illness of his father, was not possible and as he could not fulfill the demand of the deceased, she under state of anger and depression committed suicide by consuming poison.
It is also submitted that the deceased had committed suicide as she wanted to live with the applicant at Pune, which in the prevailing situation was not possible, having regard to the critical illness of his father and there is no element of either demand of dowry or commission of cruelty in lieu of same and these allegations are after thought.
It is further submitted that soon after getting knowledge that the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance, the applicant had taken her to the hospital which is evident by the information of the death of the deceased sent by the medical officer of Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur, which clearly shows that it was the applicant who had admitted the deceased in the hospital.
It is next submitted that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, this Court had directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting soft adjournments to either party and, in case, the trial court is not concluded within one year, liberty was granted tot the applicant to renew his prayer for bail.
It is vehemently submitted that applicant has cooperated in the trial and till now only six prosecution witnesses have been testified and having regard to the pace with which the trial is going on before the trial court, it is not expected that the same may conclude in near future. The applicant is detained in prison since 29.08.2019 and is not having any criminal history and all the material witnesses of the case have been examined and it could not be apprehended that the applicant after being released on bail may influence any of the prosecution witness or may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Thus, facility of bail be extended to the applicant.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of second bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and all the grounds, which have been taken in the second bail application of the applicant, have already been considered by this Court at the time of disposal of the first bail application of the instant applicant and there is no new ground available to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it would reveal that the death of the deceased had occurred due to consumption of poison, which is evident by the post mortem report as well as the report of the FSL which has been enclosed with the counter affidavit filed by the State. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits on 22.06.2021 and while rejecting the prayer of bail of the applicant, direction was given to the trial court to conclude the trial within one year and it is in this scenario, the liberty was granted to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum for renewal of his prayer for bail, in case, the case is not decided within the period stipulated. When the second bail application was placed before this Court, the trial court was directed to submit a comprehensive report on certain points and vide communication dated 25.03.2023 of the trial court, it is informed that till now only six prosecution witnesses have been testified while the six prosecution witnesses have still remained to be examined. It is also stated in the report of the trial court that on certain dates, the case has been adjourned as the prosecution witness were not placed by the prosecution as also on account of the observation of strike by the local Bar. Thus, it is not the accused applicant, who may be held responsible for committing latches for the purpose of causing delay and the delay could not be attributed to him. It appears to be an admitted fact that the applicant had got the deceased admitted in Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur. It is also an admitted case to the prosecution that the information of mis-happening was given by the applicant to the informant and other family members. The report of the trial court would also reveal that despite the court wherein this case was pending was vacant, the case was not transferred to any other court for disposal despite the order of this Court to decide the same within the period stipulated. This Court is of the considered view that the process of adjudication of a criminal dispute could itself not be the punishment as has been highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many judgments. Thus, for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, specifically the period for which the applicant has been detained in prison in this case and the number of prosecution witnessses examined so far, in the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant may be provided facility of bail. Applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 29.08.2019 without any criminal antecedents. The presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the accused/applicant- Suman Kumar involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 28.3.2023
Gurpreet Singh
