Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ramwati @ Suman vs State Of U.P. on 27 March, 2023
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59110 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Ramwati @ Suman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Vimal Pandey, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant side.
Applicant- Smt. Ramwati @ Suman, has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after rejection of her Bail Application vide order dated 24.11.2022 in Case Crime No. 955 of 2022 under Sections 304, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District - Bulandshahr.
The complainant(father of deceased) has lodged an F.I.R. on 28.10.2022 under Section 304 I.P.C. against unknown person that his son was injured while he went to Kashiram Awas on 08.09.2022 and he was admitted in hospital but was discharged on 12.09.2022. Subsequently, again he was admitted on 14.09.2022 and discharged on 16.09.2022 and thereafter on 18.09.2022, he died. According to post-mortem report, immediate cause of death was Coma due to ante-mortem injury.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that according to contents of First Information Report, one Kaushal has accompanied the deceased, however, name of applicant, a woman, was not disclosed. No prompt F.I.R. was lodged and though the occurrence occurred on 08.09.2022 and F.I.R. was lodged after death of deceased on 28.10.2022, there is no explanation of delay of more than one and a half months. Prosecution story has been developed later on and alleged motive has been assigned that there was a fight for money, and the applicant and co-accused have pushed deceased from 8th floor. Learned counsel further submits that applicant is behind the bar since 03.11.2022 and in case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A for State and learned counsel for applicant submit that there is an eye-witness to the occurrence that applicant and co-accused have actively participated and they have pushed deceased from 8th floor. Injuries also indicate that it might have caused due to fall.
LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY (A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.
(B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.
(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail.
(D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors.
(See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559) In the present case, it appears that there is a delay in lodging F.I.R. Deceased was repeatedly admitted in hospital and ultimately died after a period of about more than one month. The alleged eye-witness has not promptly informed the police or informant about involvement of applicant and co-accused. Motive has also been remained unsubstantiated by evidence collected during investigation and also taking note that applicant is a woman as well as considering nature of evidence collected against her and that she is in jail since 03.11.2022, a case of bail is made out.
Let the applicant- Smt. Ramwati @ Suman 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment or exemption from appearance on the date fixed in trial. 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.
(iii) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2023 P. Pandey