Allahabad High Court
Narendra vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164422 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33461 of 2023 Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Tabrez Ahmad,Yogesh Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Yadav,Mahendra Pratap Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Mahendra Pratap, the learned counsel representing first informant.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Narendra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 504, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Delhi Gate, district Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from record that marriage of applicant-Narendra was solemnized with Priyanka (daughter of first informant) on 28.11.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, two children, namely, Devansh and Shriyansh were born. However, just after expiry of a period of about five years from the date of marriage of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 12.10.2022 in which the wife of applicant consumed some poisonous substance and ultimately she died.
However, no information regarding the aforesaid incident was given by applicant or any of his family members at the concerned police station. Subsequently, an FIR dated 12.10.2022 was lodged by first informant, namely, Rekha (mother of the deceased) which was registered as Case Crime No.0217 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 504, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Delhi Gate, district Meerut. In the aforesaid FIR, five persons, namely, Narendra (husband); Mahendri (mother-in-law); Rajpal (father-in-law); Ravindra (Jeth) and Rakhi (Jethani of the deceased) have been nominated as named accused.
The gravamen of the allegations made in the first information report is to the effect that modesty of the deceased was repeatedly and continuously dislodged by the brother of applicant, namely, Ravindra. Various other allegations have also been made in the FIR.
After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. The inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted on 12.10.2022. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased could not be characterized whether it is homicidal or suicidal. Thereafter, the post-mortem of body of the deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased, did not find any external or internal injury on the body of the deceased. However, as the cause of death could not be ascertained therefore, the viscera was preserved. The viscera report of the deceased was subsequently submitted. As per the viscera report, a foreign chemical compound, namely, Aluminium Phosphate was found in the parts of body of the deceased sent for chemical examination. Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. Witnesses so examined have substantially supported the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only three named accused, namely, Narendra (husband), Mahendri (mother-in-law) and Rajpal (father-in-law) of the deceased is fully established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted charge-sheet dated 14.01.2023. However, rest of the named accused, namely, Ravindra (Jeth) and Rakhi (Jethani) of the deceased were exculpated.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant contends that three of the aforementioned named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 504, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. One of the named accused, namely, Smt. Mahendri (mother-in-law of he deceased) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25255 of 2023 (Smt. Mahendri Vs. State of U.P.). Aforesaid order is on record at page 10 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that as per the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR, it is alleged that modesty of the prosecutrix was repeatedly and continuously disclosed by Jeth of the deceased, namely, Ravndra. However, the said named accused has already been exculpated by the Investigating Officer. It is thus contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the very story which it set out to establish. The deceased was a short tampered lady and she has taken the extreme step to commit suicide by consuming some poisonous substance as is established from the viscera report. The bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that no external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, two children were born from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased it is urged that applicant could not have even abeted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime. There is nothing on record to conclude that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant. Attention of the Court was then invited to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 and on basis thereof the learned counsel for applicant urged that since material particulars with regard to alleged demand of additional dowry are conspicuous by their absence in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses so examined, the same are therefore liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in custody since 04.11.2022. As such he has undergone more than nine months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant. He therefore contends that the 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.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and Mr. Mahendra Pratap, the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Attention of the Court was then invited to the order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.52338 of 2023 (Rajpal Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and on basis thereof it is urged that the bail application of named/charge-sheeted co-accused Rajpal Singh (father-in-law of the deceased) has already been rejected by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 16.01.2023 is reproduced herein-under :-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Abhisekh Sinha holding brief of Shri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rajpal Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 217 of 2022, under Sections 498-A,304-B,323,504 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Delhi Gate, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation of causing dowry death of his daughter-in-law against the applicant. He is main accused.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.
This Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties does not finds any ground for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
It is next contended that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The occurrence has taken place within seven years of marriage and at the marital home of the deceased. Therefore, by reason of above the burden is upon the applicant not only to explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence as per Sections 106 and 113-B of the Evidence Act. However, up to this stage, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden. The deceased was a young lady aged about 23 years whose death has occurred in unnatural circumstances. It is thus contended that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the three named accused have been charge-sheeted and the criminality alleged to have been committed by the said named/charge-sheeted accused is similar and identical but on the same set of allegations and evidence one of the named/charge-sheeted accused, namely, Smt. Mahendri has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, though the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the death of the deceased has occurred within seven years of her marriage but the nature of death of the deceased is suicidal, the bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that no external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased by the autopsy surgeon, the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of named/charge-sheeted co-accused Smt. Mahendri, the learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel representing first informant could point out any such distinguishing feature so as to distinguish the case of the present applicant from aforementioned named/charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail, the allegations made in the FIR with regard to alleged demand of additional dowry are vague and bald being devoid of material particulars therefore, in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others (supra) the same are prima facie liable to be ignored at this stage, there are two minor children aged about four years and two years respectively, therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that applicant could have abeted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime, the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystalized, up to this stage the learned A.G.A. or the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such incriminating circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the proceeding of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal (supra), the clean antecedents of the applicant and the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Narendra, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 him 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 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 :- 16.8.2023.
Rks.