HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32879 of 2016 Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Bench on 12.8.2016 in non-prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant is the husband of the deceased but actually the applicant never subjected his wife to any ill-treatment nor demanded any dowry and actually the brother-in-law of the deceased (‘sarhu’ of the applicant), who was also of the same village, used to come very frequently in the house which was resisted by the applicant and this resulted in annoyance to the wife and because of the domestic quarrel that took place for the same reason in between the couple, that the deceased in a fit of frenzy took the extreme step and committed suicide and except this reason of her committing suicide, the applicant had nothing to do with any demand of dowry and ill-treatment which was even meted out to the wife. It was well known to her parents also and that is why the F.I.R. of the case was not lodged for almost a week after the incident. Submission is that the alleged incident took place on 10.2.2014 while the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 16.2.2014. Attention was also drawn to the contents of the F.I.R. in which it has been admitted by the first informant that he was given information earlier that his sister had committed suicide. It has also been admitted in the F.I.R. that after receiving this information he had gone to the place of occurrence and he had also found his sister dead. It has also been pointed out that actually the first informant had already given an earlier version to the police station which mobilized the police and from the side of accused also the information was given to the police in that regard. Submission is that in the earlier version given by the first informant no such allegation has been made against accused and subsequently, allegations of ill-treatment of deceased and demand of dowry and committing her murder were made just as an afterthought and on advice. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the incident took place on 10.2.2014 and the inquest proceedings were conducted on the same very day wherein the first informant was also shown as one of the witnesses of the inquest proceedings. Submission is that yet surprisingly enough the first information report in question was lodged on 16.2.2014 making all sorts of allegations against the applicant and others regarding demand of dowry and causing dowry death of the deceased. Submission is that had there been any truth in the allegations as have been made in the F.I.R. there was no justification for the first informant to have sat tight and wait further for a week to lodge the F.I.R. With the inordinate delay in this manner specifically in the background of the available opportunity which the first informant always had to lodge the F.I.R., a prima facie case in favour of the applicant is made out. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than two years in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 26.4.2014 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Sandeep, involved in Case Crime No. 24 of 2014, u/ss. 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Jahanabad, District- Fatehpur, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant’s bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 15.11.2016