Allahabad High Court
Anil Kesari vs State Of U.P. on 9 January, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4945
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1933 of 2024
Applicant :- Anil Kesari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Girja Shanker Mishra,Pratiksha Rai,Ram Singh Yadav,Rohit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani,G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant in the FIR of causing dowry death of his wife.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the entire facts was considered by this court while granting bail to mother-in-law of the deceased by this court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41468 of 2023. The order is quoted hereinbelow :-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt Kamla Devi, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section of D.P. Act, Police Station Meja, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
3. There is allegation against the applicant of committing dowry death of her daughter-in-law.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and used to quarrel with her husband. She was living separately with her husband and not with the applicant. The son of the applicant and co-accused, Anil Keshari, informed the parents of the deceased about the suicide committed by her from his mobile phone. It has submitted that the informant is running shop of fire crackers and has no other property and therefore the allegation that he spent Rs. 5 lakhs in a marriage of the deceased and further demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and two wheeler were being made is not credible. Supplementary-affidavit has been filed on behalf of applicant bringing on record the inquest report of the body of the deceased which does not shows any other injury on her body except the ligature mark on her neck. The statements of independent eye witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer have been brought on record which prove that the applicant was living with Shubham Keshari and Rahul Keshari, her sons and not with the deceased and her husband. The pradhan of the village also testified to the aforesaid fact. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She has no criminal history to her credit and is languishing in jail since 15.05.2023. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have filed a counter-affidavit and vehemently opposed the bail application. They have submitted that gram pradhan of the village is neighbour of the applicant and, therefore, he has given false statement. They have submitted that the entire family was living together in the same house and the husband of the deceased was only earning member of the family. Charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant and husband of the deceased. They have submitted that the deceases was pregnant at the time of alleged alleged offence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the death of the deceased has taken place on account of hanging. No other injury was found on her person. There is also no evidence or allegation to prove that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand of dowry. The applicant is a woman and she deserves benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., also.
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
(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.
8. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
9. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two years..
11. Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days. "
In view of the above, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 15.05.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
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, Anil Kesari, involved in Session Trial No. 1613 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2023, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Meja, District- Prayagraj, 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 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, 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.
Order Date :- 9.1.2025 / Rohit
