Allahabad High Court
Raghav Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 April, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:66213 Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3668 of 2024 Applicant :- Raghav Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Two supplementary affidavits have been filed today by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.
2. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of informant, is also taken on record.
3. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case No.519 of 2022, under Section 304 B IPC, Police Station Bichwa, District Mainpuri.
5. In short, the prosecution story as narrated in the impugned complaint case, is that the marriage of applicant with the deceased Sapna was solemnized on 13.05.2015 and on 13.08.2016 at about 4.10 pm when when the labour pain was started to her, she was taken to the Sapna Hospital where she delivered a male baby on the same day at about 10.37 pm in night. It is further alleged that after delivery of baby, her condition was serious in which she lost heavy blood from her body due to which she was referred to high centre for better treatment, therefore, she was taken to Pushpanjali Hospital, Agra but unfortunately she died on the way.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. After four months of the alleged incident, the complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for loding the FIR, which was treated as complaint case. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.5870 of 2017, which was dismissed, thereafter, the complainant approached before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.738 of 2017, which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2018. After passing the order dated 21.02.2017 in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.5870 of 2017, the complainant appeared before the court below and after recording her statement under Section 200 cr.p.c. and his relative under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned under Section 304 B IPC to face trial vide order dated 05.11.2019. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.12606 of 2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2020, thereafter, the applicant approached before Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5454 of 2020 in which notices were issued granting interim protection to the applicant. Ultimately, the said Leave to Appeal was dismissed on 29.01.2024. After dismissal of said appeal, the applicant has filed anticipatory bail application before the court below, which was also dismissed, hence, this anticipatory bail application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased Sapna, whose marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.05.2015 and from their wedlock, one male child was born on 13.08.2016, who is now aged about 7 years and studying in Class 1 in St. Xavier's School, Kharagjeet Nagar, Mainpuri, copy of certified issued by the said school is kept on record. The family members of the deceased as well as applicants family members were also present at hospital as well as during cremation. As per certificate issued by Dr. Ragini Agrawal in which it is mentioned that when the deceased was admitted, her relative i.e. husband and brother was explained progress in detail regarding complications and when they gave consent, then we admitted her and started treatment. It is further mentioned that after delivery, she suddenly developed PPH (post partun hemorrhage), therefore, she was referred to higher centre for better management on the request of her relatives, therefore, she was transferred in satisfactory and stable condition. Perusal of aforesaid certificate issued by the doctor clearly shows that deceased died due to heavy bleeding. He further submits that even if the entire allegation made in the complaint may be accepted as true, no offence under Section 304 B IPC is made out against the applicant but the court below without appreciating all these aspect has wrongly summoned the applicant, therefore, committed manifest error in law while summoning the applicant. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
8. During course of argument, the complainant Smt. Geeta, who is present before this Court, has stated that she was wrongly advised to file complaint. Now, she does not want to press the instant complaint case.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the complainant has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for loding the FIR and after treating the application as complaint case, she approached this Court by filing 482 Cr.P.C. application, which was dismissed and after dismissal, she again approached before Hon'ble Apex Court. The son, husband and brother in law of the complainant as well as complainant approached from High Court to Apex Court and now after a belated stage, the complainant stated that she does not want to pursue the instant complaint case. It is clear that either the complaint has been filed by the complainant falsely implicating the applicant or other witnesses have not narrated the truth before the Court, therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted under Section 344 Cr.P.C.
10. However, learned counsel for the complainant have supported the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
11. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
12. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Raghav Kumar, involved in the aforesaid complaint case be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vi) 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 his in accordance with law.
13. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
14. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the court below is directed to conclude the trial of the aforesaid complaint case, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this Court without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
15. So far as the contention of learned AGA for the State that the complainant is liable for prosecution under Section 344 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the trial Court is directed to deal with this aspect at the time of final hearing and shall pass necessary order in this regard.
16. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.4.2024 Ajeet