Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Umar vs State Of U.P. on 22 February, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:31371
Court No. – 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 22253 of 2023
Applicant :- Umar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar,Hemant Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr.Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Umar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.234 of 2022, under Sections 304B, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station? Naujheel, District? Mathura, during pendency of trial.
3. The present FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased on 09.06.2022 at about 00:00 hrs against the applicant, who is brother-in-law of the deceased. It has been alleged that applicant’s brother was married with the deceased on 29.06.2019 according the Muslims Rites and Customs. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with a child, who is presently aged about 2 years. The deceased was mentally and physically harassed by the applicant as well as his brother for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. On 05.06.2022 at about 03:45 am, the informant received the phone call of the applicant informing about the death of his daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been implicated in the present case being husband of the deceased. He further submits that there was some financial dispute between the informant and the applicant, therefore, the FIR has been lodged after a delay of nearly four days. Although, the information regarding death of the deceased wife of the applicant was given by the applicant himself to the informant as mentioned in the FIR itself. The informant is present at the time of inquest, which was conducted on 06.06.2022 and also at the time of funeral, however, the FIR has been lodged as an afterthought after three days. The applicant has not demanded any dowry nor has be harassed his deceased wife in any manner. As per the post-mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging there being no external injuries on the body of the deceased except ligature mark. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. He further submits that a small child of the applicant is staying with applicant’s old parents and except for the applicant, there is no one to take care of the child. The applicant has no criminal history and the same has been explained in paragraph no.16 of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.06.2022. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
7. The well-known principle of “Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty,” gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person’s right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one’s life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
8. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State.
9. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
13. 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 :- 22.2.2024
Kalp Nath Singh
