High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195999 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36165 of 2023 Applicant :- Kishor Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Tomar,Subhash Gosain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh Tomar, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Kishor Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Rampura, District-Jalaun during the pendency of trial. 4. Record shows that upon the death of the wife of the applicant on 06.03.2022, a delayed FIR dated 23.03.2022 was lodged by first informant-Bahadur Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 31 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Rampura, District-Jalaun. In the aforesaid FIR, 4 persons namely - (1) Kishor Singh (Husband), (2) Shyambabu (Father-in-law), (3) Smt. Krishna (Mother-in-law) and (4) Shailendra @ Shailu (Devar) have been nominated as named accused. 5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR to the effect that marriage of the sister of the first informant namely Arti was solemnized with the applicant-Kishor Singh in the year, 2017 (13.04.2017). However, subsequently, additional demand of Rs. 2 lacs was made. As additional demand of dowry was not fulfilled, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon the sister of the first informant. From the aforesaid wedlock, two children namely - a son - Aryan aged about 3 years and subsequently a daughter Nidhi were born who is now aged about 6 months. On account of non fulfillment of the additional demand of dowry, physical and mental cruelty was committed by the applicant along with other named accused upon the sister of the first informant for fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and ultimately, she was put to death. 9. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused inasmuch as, the charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 27.05.2022 inasmuch as, applicant, father-in-law and mother- in-law of the deceased have been charge sheeted yet applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of terminating her life by committing suicide by hanging herself. Attention of the Court was invited to the post mortem report of the deceased and on basis thereof, he submits that Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased, did not find any other external or internal ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased except ligature mark. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was shock and Asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. As such, prima-facie the death of the deceased is a suicidal death. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred after expiry of a period of 5 years from the date of marriage of the applicant. Considering the precarious condition of the applicant inasmuch as, the son Aryan is aged about 3 years and the daughter-Nidhi is aged about 6 months, applicant would not commit the crime in question. Allegations made in the FIR with regard to the demand of additional dowry are vague and bald allegation inasmuch as, the same are devoid of material particulars. The same have not been detailed even in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As such, the same are liable to be ignored. Similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased who have been charge sheeted under the same Sections have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. 10. 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 19.05.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 1 year and 5 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. 11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is the husband of decease, a named and charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. 12. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that prima-facie, the death of the deceased is a suicidal death, which has occurred after approximately 5 years of marriage the bona-fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that in the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased is shock and Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging, the Autopsy Surgeon, did not find any external or internal ante- mortem injury on the body of deceased except the ligature mark, up to this stage, no such material has emerged on the basis of which, instigation, abetment or conspiracy can be inferred against applicant, the allegation made in the FIR regarding demand of additional dowry and commission of cruelty upon deceased on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry are vague and bald allegation inasmuch as, the same are devoid of material particulars, no attempt has been made by the first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to detail the same, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, similarly situate and circumstanced co- accused have already been enlarged on bail, they have also been charge sheeted under the same Sections, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such distinguishing feature in the case of present applicant so as to distinguish his case from other charge sheeted co-accused so as to deny bail to applicant, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant-Kishor Singh, be released on bail in the 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 IN INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, 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. 15. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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 :- 10.10.2023 Vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad