Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
Legal Reasoning
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23037 of 2022 Applicant :- Dilesh, Vinod Kumar and Smt. Chandrawati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Brij Napit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 1A. Heard learned counsel for applicants, 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.07 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 120B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sahapau, District Hathras. 3. The applicants are neighbour, sister-in-law (Jethani) and brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. As per contents of first information report,the deceased was married to co-accused Krishna Murari on 17.05.2020 whereafter she was allegedly continuously harassed for dowry demands and upon its unfulfilment was murdered on 07.01.2022. F.I.R. states that the applicants had active role in the murder and thereafter the body was cut into pieces and placed in a bag and they took with them in a taxi and the bag was thereafter thrown in a river. F.I.R. places reliance on the statement of driver of a taxi, Udal Singh to cast suspicion upon the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them and except for the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., there is no direct or circumstantial evidence available against them inasmuch as the dead body was never recovered. It is submitted that the taxi driver Udal Singh in his statement also does not state that he is the eye witness of the incident or that he was even aware that the applicants had thrown something into the river. It is submitted that there is no forensic evidence pertaining to the alleged recovery of deceased's Salwar and a sheet at the instance of applicants. It is submitted that the applicants are in jail since 28.01.2022, 08.02.2022 and 15.02.2022 with charge sheet having been filed. It is submitted that husband of deceased is still under incarceration. Learned counsel also submits that previous criminal history of applicant no.2 has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail with submission that the statement of the taxi driver clearly corroborates the allegations levelled against applicants as well as the fact that a Salwar and a sheet allegedly belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance of applicants. 6. 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." 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, at this stage and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicants have been nominated in the F.I.R. primarily on the basis of the statements made by the taxi driver Udal Singh, who however is not an eye witness account. The statements of the said person would require corroboration during course of trial and as yet there does not appear to be any circumstantial evidence available against applicants, particularly looking into statements made by the taxi driver. There is no forensic report available with regard to clothing items allegedly recovered at the instance of applicants who are in jail since January, 2022 and February, 2022. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case,this Court finds, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicants Dilesh, Vinod Kumar and Smt. Chandrawati, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law. Digitally signed by GIREESAN KV Date: 2022.11.15 19:28:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 15.11.2022 kvg/-