Paras vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 9240 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2527 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Paras
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for complainant/informant and Sri Sunil Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State.

2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.19 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Lalkurti, District-Meerut after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 2.1.2023 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Meerut.

3. Father of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. against applicant his father, mother and younger brother that her daughter got married with the applicant on 29.12.2020 and dowry was also given. Out of their wedlock, a boy was also born. However, soon after marriage, accused persons started committing cruelty on his daughter in regard to demand of dowry of Car and a plot of land. A compromise was also entered between them. However, on 8.2.2022 i.e. within a short period of one and a half months of her marriage, it was informed that her daughter was not well and it was alleged that she was killed by accused persons.

4. According to postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved and according to viscera report, 'Organochloro Insecticide' was present.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that deceased were pursuing course of ANM/Nursing from Anand Nursing College, Meerut and it was a love marriage. Parents of both sides have not attended the marriage ceremony, therefore, no dowry was given. Parents of deceased even refused to take her dead body and it was the applicant who conducted her last rites. Parents of deceased have no communication with her. F.I.R. was lodged after postmortem was conducted. Co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court. The deceased was disturbed as she has to do some rituals for which some items were essentially required from her parents, but it could not be happened due to estranged relationship. Applicant is languishing in jail since 8.9.2022, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant submitted that there are consistent evidence of father and mother of deceased that applicant and her relatives have committed cruelty upon the deceased in regard to demand of dowry. Deceased died within short period of one and half months of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances. Bail orders whereby co-accused have been granted bail is not accompanied by reasons as required by Supreme Court in terms of the judgment passed in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497.

7.LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY

(A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.

(B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.

(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is not need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail.

(D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors.

(See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559)

8. In the present case, a young bride has died otherwise than under normal circumstances within short period of one and half months of her short period of marriage. In the viscera report, poisonous substance was found.

9. Crux of the argument of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant is that it being a love marriage and families of both sides have not participated in the marriage ceremony, therefore, allegations of giving dowry and demand of dowry after marriage are baseless.

10. In this regard, evidence of father and mother of deceased would be relevant.

11. Father of the deceased has not mentioned that it was a love marriage in F.I.R. though he and his wife has in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. spoke about love marriage and both of them subsequently stated that after marriage applicant and his family members started demanding dowry and they have given Rs.5 lakhs to the applicant and also deposited Rs.2000/- for the purpose of conducting rituals.

12. Above evidence, prima-facie appears to be sufficient that after marriage, there was a demand of at least some items and for that applicant being husband may be held responsible specifically when victim died within one and half months of her marriage. However, a factor which goes in favour of the applicant at this stage is that a boy born out of their wedlock is now aged about one year who requires applicant's love especially in the absence of his mother, therefore, applicant has made out a case of bail. However, the period of bail will remain for only one year and thereafter applicant has to renew his bail before this Court and at that time status of trial as well as any complaint in regard to attempt to influence the complainant as witness will be relevant factors.

13. This condition is imposed as learned A.G.A. submits that after the death of deceased, family members of applicant went to the place of parents of deceased to pressurize them for settlement.

14. Let the applicant- Paras, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

(v) Applicant has to appear on each and every date before learned Trial Court and any application for exemption of his appearance on vague ground could be a ground for cancellation of bail by learned Trial Court without even issuing notice.

15. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

16. The bail application is allowed. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.

Order Date :- 29.3.2023

P. Pandey