Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 14 November, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50964 of 2022 Applicant :- Sanjay Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh,Rakesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rakesh Prasad, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed applicant Sanjay Chauhan seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2021, under sections 498A, 304B, IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that marriage of applicant Sanjay was solemnized with Sitabi Chauhan on 28.6.202. However, just before expiry of period of two years from the date of marriage of applicant with deceased, an unfortunate incident occurred on 6.10.2021, in which wife of applicant namely Sitavi Chauhan died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The information regarding aforesaid incident was not given by applicant or any of the family members of applicant at concerned Police Station but by the father of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of aforesaid incident was lodged by first informant Kailash Chauchan/father of deceased on 7.10.2021 which was registered as Case Crime No. 292 of 2021, under sections 498A, 304B, IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely, Sanjay Chauhan, Vijay Chauhan, mother-in-law have been nominated as named accused.
The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that additional demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs and an Apache motorcycle was made by the named accused. However, as demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon deceased. Ultimately, on 6.10.2022, the daughter of first informant was put to death.
Subsequent to above, the inquest of the body of deceased was conducted on 6.7.2021 itself. In the opinion of panch witnesses, the nature of death of deceased was characterized as homicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 7.10.2021. The autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:
"Ligature mark 27cm x 8 cm around the neck 3 cm below Rt. ear lobule 4 cm below from Lt ear lobule chin above thyriod, ligature, Ligature mark base groove brownish and parchment life on cut subcutaneous tissue hand white and glistering."
However, except for the ligature mark, no other external or internal injury was found on the body of deceased. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon the cause of death of deceased was Asphyxia as a result to antemortem hanging.
During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses so exmined have supported the prosecution story. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that complicity of only one of the named accused i.e. Sanjay Chauhan husband of the deceased is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 1.1.2022, whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted under sections 498A, 304B IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that subsequent to the submission of the above mentioned charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by Court concerned. As offence complained of is triable by Court of sessions, accordingly case was committed by concerned Magistrate to Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2022 (State Vs. Sanjay Chauhan) came to be registered. On date two prosecution witnesses of fact P.W.1, father of deceased, P.W.2, Urmila Devi have been examined. However, aforesaid witnesses have not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that up to this stage, there is no material to show that complicty of applicant in the crime in question is established. Prosecution witnesses of fact have themselves not supported the prosecution story.
It is next contended that 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 8.10.2021. As such, he has undergone more than one year and one month of incarceration. The trial has already commenced and two prosecution witnesses of fact have already been examined who have not supported the prosecution story. As such custodial arrest of applicant is no longer necessary during the course of trial. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed this application. However, he could not dislodge the factual submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant, at this stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, as well as complicity of applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that two prosecution witnesses, who have been examined up to this stage, have not supported the prosecution story and the period of incarceration undergone by applicant and the nature of death of deceased but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.
Let the applicant Sanjay Chauhan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her 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 :- 14.11.2022 Arshad