High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124700 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19416 of 2023 Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Chandra Dwivedi
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. In this case, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased was married with the present accused on 08.03.2019 and she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment for want of demand of additional dowry by all her in-laws. The deceased is also a mother of girl child but in-laws often made assault upon her. She was also ousted from her matrimonial home wherefrom she came to her parental house and thereafter, she started living at the house of her Bua, Smt. Siya Devi. Meanwhile, an F.I.R. as Case Crime No.345 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was also lodged against her in-laws, which is pending investigation. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that while residing at the house of Bua, she was being threatened and harassed by her in-laws on telephone call for demand of additional dowry. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that she was found hanging on a tree in the village on 12.09.2022 and F.I.R. was lodged on 24.09.2022. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that in-laws of the deceased including the present accused applicant, who is the husband, have been falsely implicated in this case. The deceased was never subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws. No demand for additional dowry was ever made to her. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased has not been occurred in the house of the accused rather she has committed suicide while living with her aunt-in-law (Bua). It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the deceased has an affair with Surendra, the son of aunt-in-law and on the same day, the said Surendra also took some poisonous substance and tried to commit suicide and then he was taken to the hospital and being perturbed with this incident, the deceased on the very day, committed suicide by hanging. It is further submitted that in the medical report, cause of death has been found asphyxia as a result of ante mortem injury. It is further submitted that the accused applicant has no role at all in the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that CDR has been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation wherein it was found that long history of chat was there in between the deceased and accused applicant Surendra and they hade been talking for long several times. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased was ousted from her matrimonial home on account of demand of additional dowry and even she was living with her aunt-in-law (Bua). She was being harassed by her in-laws and also by the present accused applicant on telephone. It is further submitted that her dowry death has been caused by the present accused applicant and his family members. It is further submitted that medical report corroborates the prosecution version and the witnesses of fact have supported the prosecution version in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, the prosecution could not dispute this fact that that the death of the deceased was occurred not in her matrimonial house but in the house of her aunt-in-law (Bua). The CDR which is collected during the course of investigation, has also not been disputed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- "15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." 7. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 can be 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. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 8. In this matter, as is evident from the record that accused applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and accused applicant is in jail since 22.12.2022. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (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. 9. Let the applicant Anil involved in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nibohara, District - Agra be released on bail on 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 11. It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same. Order Date :- 6.6.2023 Shivangi Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad