High Court · 2020
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24357 of 2020 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Legal Reasoning
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 Krishna 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. Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Prabhat Digitally signed by PRABHAT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.25 13:57:09 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. 14 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Buland Shahar. 3. The applicant is the husband of deceased and as per contents of F.IR., had got married to the deceased 15 to 16 years prior to the date of incident. It is stated that for the past 4 to 5 years, there was marital discord between the applicant and his wife due to which the applicant allegedly murdered his wife on 3rd January 2020. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of the fact that he is husband of deceased. It is submitted that the applicant was taken into custody on the basis of statement of first informant and the minor son of applicant but during course of trial, the first informant as P.W.2 has not supported the prosecution version and has specifically stated that he is not an eye witness to the incident. It is further submitted that minor son of the applicant as P.W.7 also did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile. As such it is submitted that there is neither any direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant who is under custody as an under trial since 5th January, 2020 with only seven prosecution witnesses having been examined till date although the charge sheet indicates a total number of 22 prosecution witnesses. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that the applicant is the husband of deceased and the first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly corroborated the allegations. 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 although applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. on the basis of suspicion but neither the first informant as P.W.2 nor even the alleged eye witness i.e. the minor son of applicant as P.W.7 have supported the prosecution version with P.W.7 having been declared hostile. As such at this stage, there does not appear to be any direct or even circumstantial evidence against the applicant who is in jail since Ist January, 2020 with 15 prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined. As such there is no hope of any early conclusion of trial. 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."