Allahabad High Court
Anubhav @ Ambuj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 12 March, 2024
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21707 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5508 of 2023 Applicant :- Anubhav @ Ambuj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arunendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Arunendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2022 in Case Crime No.397 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bilgram, District-Hardoi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the present applicant is the husband of the victim (since deceased). He has further submitted that the applicant or his family members have never demanded any dowry from the victim (since deceased) or her family members and their relations with her husband were cordial. The applicant is an Electrician by profession and when his wife committed suicide, he was not present in the house. He himself is not aware that as to why she has committed suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred the post-mortem report of the victim (since deceased) showing ante-mortem injuries, which clearly reveals that except one ligature mark around the neck area, no ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the victim (since deceased). The cause of death is comma due to cerebral hypoxia as a result of ante-mortem partial hanging as noted. He has further submitted that till date only the charges have been framed by the learned trial court and the trial has yet not proceeded. Further, the other co-accused i.e. his parents and others have already been enlarged on bail and on anticipatory bail by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future. He has also submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and he undertakes that the present applicant shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order so fixed by this Hon'ble Court. There is no apprehension of absconding the present applicant or tampering with the evidence if he is released on bail.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant have, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel for the informant has also stated that within 14 months of marriage the victim has committed suicide in her in-laws place, therefore, the applicant, who is husband of the victim (since deceased), will have to establish that the death of the victim was natural. He has further submitted that the death of the victim was not natural death but was under the compelling circumstances, coercion and torture.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the fact that all the co-accused persons have been granted either bail or anticipatory bail; there is no ante-mortem injuries except one ligature mark on the neck area of the victim; after framing the charges the trial has not proceeded further, therefore, it will take substantial time to conclude the trial; the applicant has given undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall not violate the conditions of bail order and shall also co-operate in the trial proceedings; without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is, therefore, allowed.
9. Let the applicant-Anubhav @ Ambuj, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 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 present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 12.3.2024 Suresh/