Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2022
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4084 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Farooq Ayoob Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Mrs. Nisha Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Mohd. Asraf, holding brief of Shri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the informant, Shri Suhsil Kumar Pandy, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The applicant, Manoj Kumar, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 363 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Haidergargh, District Barabanki.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The first information report was lodged against the applicant and his four other family members on the false allegation of demand of additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and causing cruelty to the deceased who is the daughter of the informant and the wife of the present applicant. The informant in the F.I.R. stated that on the date of Durga Pooja he received information that his daughter was killed by the applicant and his family members for non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant and his entire family members have no role regarding the death of the deceased and she died by drowning in the well. As per the post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is due to asphyxia as result of ante mortem drowning and two other ante mortem injuries are found on the person of deceased which are simple in nature.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant was also not present at the time of alleged incident and he was attending Durga Pooja alongwith his family members and other villagers which was organized in the village. The investigating officer after investigation of the case dropped the names of the coaccused, who are the family members of the applicant and filed charge-sheet against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no one has seen the alleged incident when the deceased was drown in the well. The statement of the informant was taken by the police, in which the informant has stated the same version of the FIR but has also admitted the fact that the daughter of the informant was drown in the well. The independent witnesses namely Ram Das Rawat, Tej Bahadur, Shyam Lal, Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Pyare and Ram Milan of the same village have stated that they were present at the time of Durga Pooja in the village and they came to know that the wife of the applicant was drown in the well and when she was taken out, she died. They have not stated anywhere that the applicant was causing cruelty with his wife (deceased) or there is regular fight between the husband and wife nor any allegation regarding demand of dowry was made by any of the independent witnesses who are the villagers and neighbours of the applicant, thus none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and have stated that deceased died due to drowning in the well.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.10.2019 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-
"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."
Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-
"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 11.10.2019 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Shri Mohd. Asraf, brief holder of Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA while opposing the prayer for bail of the applicant submitted that the bail application of the applicant may be rejected as he was involved in the heinous crime and has murdered his wife by drowning her in the well. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the applicant.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that the cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as result of ante mortem drowning. Except ante mortem drowning only two other injuries are found on the person of the deceased which are simple in nature. There is no independent eye witnesses to support the prosecution case. There is no allegation made by the informant or by any other persons that the applicant and his family members have drown the deceased in the well. The independent witnesses who are the villagers namely Ram Das Rawat, Tej Bahadur, Shyam Lal, Durgesh Kumar Sharma, Pyare and Ram Milan have not supported the prosecution case and have already stated this fact that when they were attending Durga Pooja in the village they heard that the wife of applicant was drown in the well and when she was taken out from the well, she died. They have also not stated anywhere that any cruelty or demand of dowry was made by the applicant and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) and Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Manoj Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 363 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.
(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
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 merit of the case.
Order Date :- 2.8.2022 GSY