High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54589 of 2021 Applicant :- Pramod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.S. Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) applicant is father -in-law of the deceased; (b) no external injury except one ligature mark was found on the person of the deceased; (c) general allegation of torturing and harassing for demand of dowry has been made against applicant; (d) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the applicant; (e) co-accused Smt. Sadhna having identical role has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50051 of 2021 vide order dated 26.11.2021; (f) Charge -sheet has been submitted against three persons, applicant, his wife and Nitesh, son of the applicant but exonerated four other named persons; It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Pramod be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) 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. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 of Cr.P.C. (iv) 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 the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 22.3.2022/aks Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.03.25 17:44:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Pramod under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0296 of 2021 for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 30.11.2021. Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 27.07.2021 at 6.35 hours has been lodged by the first informant, who is father of the deceased against the applicant and six other named persons stating therein that the marriage of his daughter had been solemnized with Nitesh on 07.02.2013 along with sufficient dowry but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and demanded one Car and Rs. 5,00000/- cash. When the aforesaid demand of additional dowry was not met then they started harassing and torturing her. On 22.07.2021, his daughter came to the house of first informant and told about the demand of additional dowry and harassment. On 23.07.2021, first informant along with his family members including his daughter went to her matrimonial house and tried their level best to resolve the said dispute and thereafter returned back to his house. On 24.07.2021, an information was furnished by some unknown person on phone intimating the first informant that his daughter has been murdered by the applicant and his family members. On being known about the said incident, first informant along with his family members immediately reached on the spot and found that the death body of his daughter was lying and also saw that his daughter had received injuries on her neck and body and her tongue was out. Before lodging the first information report, inquest of the deceased has been conducted on 24.07.2021 at 8.00 am on the information of brother of the victim, postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 24.07.2021 at 12.20 P.M. As per Post mortem report, no external injury except one ligature mark was found on the person of the deceased. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging. After recording the statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant, his wife on 21.09.2021 and against Nitesh on 17.12.2021. The applicant was arrested on 12.11.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that marriage of daughter of first informant was solemnized in the years 2013 with Nitesh. It is further submitted that F.I.R. in question has been lodged under Section 302 I.P.C. but charge- sheet has been submitted under Section 306 I.P.C. It is further submitted that no external injury except one ligature mark was found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that no specific allegation has been made against the applicant in the present case. Only general allegation of torturing and demand of dowry has been made against the applicant. No specific role/ involvement has been attributed against the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Smt. Sadhna having identical role has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50051 of 2021 vide order dated 26.11.2021. He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is not convicted in cognizable offence by any court. Per contra, learned AGA has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.