Allahabad High Court
Kaushlendra Yadav @ Kaushal vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 2022
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38108 of 2021 Applicant :- Kaushlendra Yadav @ Kaushal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav, Govind Saran Hajela Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Govind Saran Hajela, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.620 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah.
3. The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is husband of the deceased. The entire family members of the applicant has been roped in the present case. There are general allegations of demand of dowry against all the accused persons. No specific allegation of demand of dowry has been levelled against the present accused. The applicant has never demanded for additional dowry nor he harassed or tortured the deceased. As per postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, viscera was preserved. Further contention is that during trial, PW-1 Shubodh Kumar, the brother of the deceased, PW-2 Kali Charan, the father of the deceased, PW-3 Sarvesh Kumar, mother of the deceased and PW-4 Rube Devi, sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, hence, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. 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. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2021 having no previous criminal history.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per version of the FIR, there is clear cut allegation against the applicant and his family members. After investigation, on the basis of evidence collected by the investigating officer, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant is perpetrator of the alleged crime in question. The offence is heinous in nature, hence, the applicant is not entitled for any relief and the bail application is liable to be rejected. However, he does not dispute the fact that PW-1 Shubodh Kumar, the brother of the deceased, PW-2 Kali Charan, the father of the deceased, PW-3 Sarvesh Kumar, mother of the deceased and PW-4 Rube Devi, sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile, but has submitted that if the trial court found that the witnesses, who were examined and have given false evidence and have turned hostile, proceeding under Section 344 Cr.P.C. should be initiated against the hostile witnesses for giving false evidence and levelling false and concocted allegations.
5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
6. Let the applicant-Kaushlendra Yadav @ Kaushal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :
(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 IPC.
(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 IPC.
(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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
8. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
9. Before parting with this case, I would like to observe that nowadays the practice of stating falsehood are being continuously increased and the same is on higher side. Neither accused nor victim or any witnesses should be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood. Dispensation of justice in a criminal trial is a serious issue and cannot be allowed to become a mockery by simply allowing prime prosecution witnesses to turn hostile.
10. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly seeing the fact that the main witnesses, namely, PW-1 Shubodh Kumar, the brother of the deceased, PW-2 Kali Charan, the father of the deceased, PW-3 Sarvesh Kumar, mother of the deceased and PW-4 Rube Devi, sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile, the trial Court is directed to ensure the compliance of provisions of section 344 Cr.P.C against them in case found guilty, at the appropriate stage, if it deems fit and proper.
Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Ajeet