Shyam Lal vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 14017 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11709 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Shyam Lal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

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.413 of 2022 (Session Trial No.79 of 2022), under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Premnagar, District-Bareilly after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 15.2.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

3. In the present case, applicant is the father-in-law of deceased, who died otherwise in normal circumstances within a period of two years of her marriage. According to the post-mortem report, immediate cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that initially, the F.I.R. was lodged against six persons including the applicant. However, charge-sheet has been filed only against the applicant and his son (husband of deceased). The applicant is a widower, aged about 60 years. The allegations made against him and his son are omnibus and are without any specific demand of dowry and therefore, appears to be vague. Only circumstances which goes against the applicant is that he was staying along with his son and deceased.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that considering his age there would be no chance to influence the witnesses, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on bail. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.10.2022, 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. has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that deceased died within a short period i.e. within two years of her marriage under otherwise in normal circumstances. There is evidence that the applicant and his son was not happy with the dowry items gifted at the time of the marriage. However, it is not disputed that there was no specific demand of dowry.

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 no 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)

7. Considering that the present case is related to the father-in-law who is aged about 60 years. It appears that there is no dispute that deceased died under otherwise than normal circumstances within a period of two years of her marriage. However, there is substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. was lodged against six persons, however, the charge-sheet has been filed only against two persons, therefore, it was a case of exaggeration as well as evidence with regard to the demand of dowry appears to be vague, in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162. Therefore, taking into note that the applicant is in the jail since 18.10.2022 and there is over-crowing in the jail also, therefore, a case of bail is made out.

8. Let the applicant- Shyam Lal, 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 she 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 her 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 her, 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 her appearance on vague ground could be a ground for cancellation of bail by learned Trial Court without even issuing notice.

9. 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

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

Order Date :- 3.5.2023

Sachin/