High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1306 of 2023 Applicant :- Pintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shantanu Pandey,Shashi Kant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
(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). 7. In the present case, applicant is husband of deceased who died otherwise than under normal circumstances within a short period of one and a half year of her marriage. There are evidence against the applicant that there was a demand of dowry of a motorcycle, though it may be of general nature as the same was qua to all accused persons and further a factor which goes in favour of applicant is the unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging of F.I.R. as well as taking note that applicant is in jail since 26.8.2022, and the factor of overcrowding in jails also, a case of bail is made out. 8. Let the applicant-Pintu, 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. 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 :- 4.4.2023 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1.Heard Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Vimal Pandey, learned A.G.A. 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.300 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bakewar, District-Etawah after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 12.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Etawah. 3. Applicant is the husband of deceased who died otherwise than under normal circumstances within a period of one and half year of her marriage. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was normally working in Gujarat and he was not present on the date of occurrence. Family of the deceased also lives at Gujarat and accompanied the applicant and they were present at the time of inquest report. There was no prior complaint of any demand of dowry or cruelty as well as that there is a delay of about 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained as such the time has been utilized to make out a false case agaisnt the applicant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.8.2022, 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that considering that a young daughter has died therefore, delay of 15 days in lodging the F.I.R. may not be a relevant factor, as well as evidence collected during trial is consistent that marriage was solemnized with dowry and after marriage also, there was repeated demand of dowry on behalf of applicant and his family members of a motorcycle. 6.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.