Devraj v. State of U.P.). The aforesaid order dated
Case Details
Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17366 of 2022 Applicant :- Pappu @ Krishna Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar,D.M.Tripathi,Firdos Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. Present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No. 127 of 2020, u/s 304-B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Pipari, District Kaushambi. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant herein is the husband, however, general role has been assigned to all the accused persons, therefore, he is entitled for parity and he submits that co-accused Devraj has already been granted bail vide order dated 19.02.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38168 of 2020 (Devraj vs. State of U.P.). The aforesaid order dated 19.2.2021 is quoted as under:- "Heard Shri D.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. By means of the present bail application the applicant, who is facing prosecution in connection with Case Crime No.127 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 326, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Pipri, District-Kaushambi, is seeking his enlargement on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since 26.05.2020. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that for the incident of 20.01.2020, present F.I.R. was got registered on 21.05.2020 after inordinate delay of four months. It is next contended that while cooking food she had accidentally got burnt injury on 20.1.2020 and she was admitted in the hospital and remained in the hospital till 22nd of March, 2020 on which date she was discharged. Thereafter she went to her Maika where she developed septicemia over burn injury and finally on 26.05.2020 she took her last breath. Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that it was a case of accidental burn injury and due to mal-treatment of the injuries, she had developed septicemia. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. general and omnibus role has been attributed to all the family members. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, generality of role and efforts made by the applicant, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, charge sheet has been submitted and nothing left to be investigated, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and 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 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-Devraj, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) 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. (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 IPC. (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., 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 IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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. (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-: 1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. 2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above." Learned counsel for the applicant adopts the argument made in the above quoted order and submits that merely because he is the husband, he cannot be made to remain in jail for indefinite period. Attention was further drawn to Annexure-1 to the affidavit to indicate that while saving the deceased the applicant has also suffered severe burn injuries and by drawing attention to the statement of the injured at Page 44 it is submitted that after recovery from burn injury she was discharged from hospital after one month and was living at home and died after four months due to septicemia and allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is innocent and has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 18.08.2020/19.08.2020. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and 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 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 Pappu @ Krishna Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) 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. (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 IPC. (iii) 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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT 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 IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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. (v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Vandit/Lalit Shukla Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad