Allahabad High Court
Ramanand vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188418 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36351 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramanand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Ramanand seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Jaswant Nagar, district Etawah, during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that marriage of Rampal (son of the applicant) was solemnized with Roxy (sister of the first informant) on 28.04.2018. However, after expiry of a period of approximately five years from the date of marriage of son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 10/11.04.2023 in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant, namely, Roxy died as she committed suicide by hanging herself.
The information regarding aforesaid occurrence at the concerned police station was not given by applicant or any of his family members but by Ritik Roshan, brother of the deceased.
Thereafter, inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted on 11.04.2023. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. However, the cause of death of the deceased was opined as commission of cruelty upon the deceased by her in-laws. Subsequent to above, the post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, who conducted autopsy of the body of deceased, cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a a result of ante-mortem hanging. The autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased-Roxy :
"Ante-mortem Injuries :-
Ligature mark of size 26cm x 3 cm oblique, non continuous, high up in the neck between chin & laryns.
The base of grooves hard brown & parchment like. On dissection subcutaneous tissues under Mark hard and glistening. KUO Mark present right side of neck just behind right ear."
After aforesaid proceedings had been undertaken, a delayed F.I.R. dated 12.04.2023 was lodged by first informant namely, Ritik Roshan (brother of the deceased) which was registered as Case Crime No.0091 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Jaswant Nagar, district Etawah. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons, namely, Rampal (husband); Ganga Devi (mother-in-law); Ramanand (father-in-law) (applicant herein); Preeti (Jethani); Tej Singh (Jeth) and Ramu (Jeth) 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 marriage of Roxy, sister of the first informant, was solemnized with Rampal on 28.04.2018 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, sufficient amount of dowry, a motorcycle and goods were given. However, the in-laws' of the deceased were dissatisfied with the same and demand of additional dowry by way of a four wheeler was made. But as demand of additional dowry was not fulfilled, physical and mental cruelty was committed on the sister of first informant. Ultimately, the sister of the first informant died.
After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII CrPC. He 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 course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only three of the named accused, namely, Rampal (husband); Smt. Ganga Devi (mother-in-law) and Ramanand (father-in-law) of the deceased (applicant herein) is fully established in the crime in question. In view of above, Investigating Officer submitted police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC on 02.07.2023, whereby aforementioned named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas the other named accused have been exculpated.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, a named/charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. He further contends that similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused Ganga Devi, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38288 of 2023 (Ganga Devi Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein-below :-
"By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2023 at Police Station-Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 03.06.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 11.07.2023.
The following arguments made by Shri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased.
2. The applicant never demanded dowry or torture the deceased nor did she interfere in the matrimonial life of the deceased and her husband.
3. The applicant is bereaved by the death of her daughter-in-law.
4. The applicant and her husband resided with their sons together at Jaswantnagar Ahirtola. However, after the sons of the applicant got married, they separated out from the joint family and set up nuclear family establishment respectively. The deceased was residing with her husband at Fakkadpura.
5. The deceased was a sensitive lady who was prone to extreme reactions even over trivial issues.
6. On the fateful day, in a fit of rage, after some arguments with her husband, she took the extreme step of ending her life. She committed suicide by hanging.
7. The postmortem report opines the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
8. Injuries depicted in the postmortem report consistent with hanging are:
(i) Nature of ligature mark.
(ii). No abnormality was detected in the hyoid bone.
9. The applicant did not aid or abet the suicide.
10. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.
11. The prerequisite for attracting the presumption and reversing the burden of proof are not established in the facts and circumstances and evidence of the case.
12. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
13. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Ganga Devi 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted."
On the above premise, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the case of present applicant and that of co-accused Ganga Devi is similar and identical, inasmuch as, both have been charge-sheeted under the same sections. There is no distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny him bail. On the basis of above, he contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of aforesaid co-accused, the applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
It is next contended that the deceased was a short tampered lady and she had taken the extreme step of terminating her life by committing suicide. The bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that the autopsy surgeon, who conducted autopsy of body of the deceased, did not find any other external or internal ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark. With reference to the FIR, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the allegations made in the FIR with regard to demand of additional dowry and commission of physical cruelty upon the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry are vague and bald allegations, inasmuch as, the same are devoid of material particulars. No attempt has been made by the first informant to substantiate the same in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, copy of which is on record at page 50 of the paper book. The said fact is not contradicted by the learned A.G.A. He, therefore, contends that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, the said allegations are liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage. The applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The husband of the deceased i.e. son of the applicant is already languishing in jail.
Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 12.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than three 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 applicant. He, therefore, contends that 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. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The deceased was a young lady. The occurrence has taken place in her marital home just after expiry of approximately five years from the date of her marriage. As such, the same is highly un-natural. The occurrence has taken place within seven years of marriage of the deceased and that too in her matrimonial home. As such, the death of the deceased is a dowry death. 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, upto this stage, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden. He, therefore, contends that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, he 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, 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 applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, similarly situate and circumstanced co-accused Ganga Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased) has already been enlarged on bail, both the accused have been charge-sheeted under same sections, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such distinguishing feature in the case of the present applicant so as to distinguish his case from aforementioned charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused so as to deny bail to the applicant, 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, the applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry, the bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark no other external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased by the autopsy surgeon, the husband of the deceased i.e. son of the applicant is already in jail, 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, yet inspite of above the learned A.G.A. 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 Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 Live Law (SC) 373 (paragraph 5), the clean antecedents of the applicant and the period of incarceration undergone, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail 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 Ramanand, 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 :- 27.9.2023.
Rks.