High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11706 of 2022 Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Pandey,Devi Prasad Tripathi,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Satyam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Mishra,Shailendra Kumar Ojha Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned cousnel for applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law and has nothing to do whatsoever with the crime alleged. It is submitted that the applicant is of advanced age and is in jail since 2nd March, 2021 with trial still in an initial stage. It is further submitted that the applicant in fact was living separately although in the same house due to family tensions which is corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses as per case diary itself. It is further submitted that husband of the deceased is still in jail and bail application of mother-in-law has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36610 of 2021 but has sought to distinguish on the ground that the pleading with regard to separate living was disbelieved since there was no corroborative evidence with regard to same but in the present case, the statement of present witnesses are on record corroborating the same. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State as well as learned cousnel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the post mortem report clearly indicates several injuries on the body of deceased and death has occasioned unnaturally within a period of two years from the date of marriage as a result of strangulation. It is thus submitted that presumption as per Evidence Act is required to be discharged by the applicant. 6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that the applicant is father-in-law of deceased and is in jail since 2nd March, 2021 with trial yet in the initial stage. Pleading with regard to separate living has been made in order to discharge presumption and is sought to be corroborated by statement of independent witnesses as per the case diary, a copy of which is on record. It also appears that the main ground for rejecting bail application of mother-in-law was that separate living had only been pleaded in the affidavit without any corroborative evidence. In the present case, the statement of independent witnesses do not appear to have any dichotomy and were not under consideration before co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting bail application. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Vijay Kumar involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. 11. It is expected that trial court shall make all endeavour to expedite the trial. Order Date :- 12.10.2022 Prabhat Digitally signed by PRABHAT KUMAR Date: 2022.10.12 17:24:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 86 of 2021 under sections 498A, 304B IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. According to the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant's son and the informant's daughter had got married on 9th February, 2019 whereafter the demand for additional dowry was made but due to its unfulfilment, the deceased was tortured mentally and physically. It is stated that the deceased was thereafter done to death by the applicant and co-accused on 25th February, 2021.