High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25581 of 2022 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Anurag Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Pradeep Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 826 of 2021, under sections 306, 498a IPC, Police Station- Kanth, District- Shahjahanpur during the pendency of trial. Perused the record. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 14.8.2021, first informant filed an application dated 8.9.2021, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said application came to be allowed by concerned Magistrate. Resultantly, an F.I.R. dated 21.12.2021 came to be registered as Case Crime No. 826 of 2021, under sections 306, 498a IPC, Police Station- Kanth, District- Shahjahanpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. six persons namely, Pradeep Kumar, Asharfi Lal, Surja Devi, Seeta, Ramsare, Radheshyam, have been nominated as named accused. After completion of investigation of concerned case crime number, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 21.4.2022, whereby applicant alone has been charge sheeted under sections 498 A and 306 IPC, whereas the other named accused have been exculpated. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, but he is innocent. Marriage of applicant with the deceased was solemnized 14 years prior to the occurrence in question. From the aforesaid wedlock, two children were born. Perusal of post mortem report goes to show that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. No grievous or fatal injury was found on the body of deceased. Application under section 156 (3) was filed by first informant after expiry of a period of 25 days from the date of incident. As such, there is belated F.I.R. However, delay in fiing the application has not been explained in the application itself nor in the statement of first informant. Placing reliance upon paragraph 8 of the judgement of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2019(5) SCC 403, learned counsel for applicant contends that since delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained, prosecution of applicant itself cannot be maintained. It is then submitted that deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suciede by hanging herself. Bonafie of the applicant is explicit from the fact that except for the legature mark no other ante- mortem injury was found on the body of deceased. Up to this stage, no such material has been collected by Investigating Officer, on the basis of which it can be definitely concluded that applicant has abetted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime in question. Moreover offence under section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. It is next contended that even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 20.4.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 7 months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed this application for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submission urged by learned counsel for applicants, at this stage. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, as well as complicity of applicant, accusations made coupled with the fact that marriage of applicant with the deceased was solemnized 15 years prior to the lodging of F.I.R., two children having been born from aforesaid wedlock, there being no material on record to definitely conclude that applicant has abetted instigated or conspired in the commission of crime, offence under section 306 IPC being subject to trial evidence, bonafide of applicant being explicit from the fact that, except for ligature mark no other grievous or fatal injury was found on the body of decease, clean antecedents of applicants, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. Let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number 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/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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. 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. Order Date :- 23.12.2022 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad