High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25296 of 2022 Applicant :- Param Pragyan Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Istiyaq Ali,Ali Hasan,Gautam Baghel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Kumar Yadava,Shesh Chand Upadhyay,Shyam Surat Shukla Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the leanred counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
Legal Reasoning
3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 24 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Oonj, District Bhadohi. 4. As per contents of first information report, the applicant had married niece of informant on 11th December, 2019. It is stated that at the time of marriage, the applicant was unemployed but was subsequently employed by Forest Department on contractual basis and thereafter demand for dowry in the form of four wheeler was continuously made. It is also stated that on 19th February, 2022 younger brother of informant received a phone call that the informant's niece, i.e., wife of applicant had been electrocuted and was being taken to hospital. When the informant and family members reached the place they were informed by the applicant and his family members that his niece was declared dead. It is further stated that Doctor Incharge of that particular hospital informed that no such patient as the niece of informant was ever brought there. It has also been stated that when the informant reached the cremation ground they saw injuries on the body of deceased. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the charges levelled against him only on account of fact that he is husband of deceased. It is also submitted that in fact the deceased died due to electrocution from immersion rod while she was heating water for the purpose of bathing. It is further submitted that the statements of informant and his family members have serious and material contradictions with the contents of first information report, since all of them have stated that upon gaining information about electrocution they reached the house of applicant and it was they who subsequently cremated the deceased and not the applicant and his family members. It is also submitted that during framing of charges, Section 201 IPC has been removed as one of the charges against the applicant whereas final report has been filed against other named named co-accused in the first information report. It is further submitted that even amongst the family members of the informant, there is contradiction in the statement as evident from the statement of uncle of deceased.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that death occasioned within a period of seven years of marriage in the house of the applicant, as such, presumption is required to be discharged by the applicant with the terms of Section 113 of the Evidence Act read with Section 304-B IPC. It is further submitted that statement of informant and his family members have wrongly been recorded by the Investigating Officer deliberately in order to exonerate the applicant and his family members and that the informant is in the process of filing a protest petition. 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. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it appears that death has occasioned within seven years from the date of marriage for which presumption is sought to be explained that the deceased passed away on being electrocuted while warming water by immersion rod. At this stage, it appears that the statement of informant and is family members recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. are not in conformity with the allegations levelled in the first information report.The said aspect, however, is required to be seen during trial. It is also evident from the certified copy of the order brought on record that no charges under Section 201 Cr.P.C. has been framed against the applicant and has yet no protest petition has been filed by the informant or his family members. The applicant is in jail since 26.04.2022 and charges have, in the matter, already been framed but evidence has not yet been commenced. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Param Pragyan Pandey urf Atul Pandey, 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 :- 14.11.2022/Ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH Date: 2022.11.16 14:39:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad