High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28379 of 2022 Applicant :- Prashant @ Mintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. Second supplementary afÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today, is taken on record. Heard Sri Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. The instant application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Prashant @ Mintu with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in F.I.R./ Case Crime No. 340 of 2021, under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused/applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated in this case because he happens to be the husband of the deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant
Legal Reasoning
that a false first information came to be lodged against five named accused persons including the present applicant/husband of the deceased. it is submitted that there was vague and general allegations of demand of dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty in the first information report against all the accused persons including the present applicant. No specific role was assigned to the present applicant. The cause of death, according to postmortem report, is stated to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. No other antemortem external or internal injury is reported on the person of the deceased. He also submits that though the prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Daras, father of the deceased/first informant, Anil Kumar & Sunil Kumar, who are brothers of the deceased and Niranjan Prasad, maternal uncle of the deceased have supported the prosecution case in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, in their statements recorded as PW-1 to PW-4 before the learned trial Court they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. They have specifically stated that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons including the present applicant. He, thus, submits that no case under Section 304-B I.P.C. is made out against the present applicant because no presumption, as envisaged under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, can be raised against the present applicant in want of evidence regarding demand of dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the accused/ applicant is languishing in jail since 27.10.2021 who has no previous criminal history. His further submission is that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has
Legal Reasoning
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the present applicant/husband of the deceased is named in the first information report. However, he could not dispute the other factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant including the fact that though the prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Daras, father of the deceased/first informant, Anil Kumar & Sunil Kumar, who are brothers of the deceased and Niranjan Prasad, maternal uncle of the deceased have supported the prosecution case in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, in their statements, recorded as PW-1 to PW-4 before the learned trial Court, they have not supported the prosecution case and have declared hostile. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that that the first information came to be lodged against five named accused persons including the present applicant/husband of the deceased. There was vague and general allegation of demand of dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty in the first information report against all the accused persons including the present applicant. No specific role was assigned to the present applicant. The cause of death, according to postmortem report, is stated to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. No other antemortem external or internal injury is reported on the person of the deceased. It also transpires that the prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Daras, father of the deceased/first informant, Anil Kumar & Sunil Kumar, who are brothers of the deceased and Niranjan Prasad, maternal uncle of the deceased have supported the prosecution case in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, in their statements recorded before the learned trial Court as PW-1 to PW-4 they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. They have specifically stated that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons including the present applicant. They have also not supported the allegations regarding treating the deceased with cruelty by the present applicant soon before death of the deceased. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.10.2021 who has no previous criminal history. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the nature of offence, evidence regarding the complicity of applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The bail application is, thus, allowed. Let the applicant Prashant @ Mintu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial; 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment; 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail; 4. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer; 5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court; 6. 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, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 23.1.2023 SP/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad