Allahabad High Court
Sonpal vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 15 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15461 of 2021 Applicant :- Sonpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav,D.K. Singh Somvanshi,Sant Bux Singh,Suraj Singh Visen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rudra Pratap Singh,Yuga Raj Singh Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the State as well as by learned counsel for complainant/informant, the same is taken on record.
Heard Shri D.K. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, Shri Yuga Raj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Sonpal for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 357 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Applicant is a young boy of the age of 19 years which is evident from the copy of 'parivar register' placed on record and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the first information report of the incident was lodged by the brother of the deceased on 07.07.2021 at Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri against the husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law (devar/applicant) with the allegations that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized two years from before lodging of the first information report and since the marriage the deceased was being subjected to cruelty in lieu of demand of Rs. 1 lac and a 'gold chain' and when the same was not fulfilled, the deceased had been done to death by the accused persons. The postmortem report of the deceased would suggest that a 'ligature mark' has been found around her neck and apart from the ligature mark, 08 injuries of the nature of contusion, abrasion have also been found and as per the opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased had occurred due to 'asphyxia', as a result of 'antemortem hanging'.
Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that general allegations of demand of Rs. 1 lac and a 'gold chain' is alleged, however, the applicant being the 'devar' of the deceased could not be the beneficiary of the same. No specific overt act or imputation has been levelled against the applicant. While referring to a copy of the 'parivar register' placed at Page No. 43 of the paper book, it is submitted that the applicant along with his parents and brothers was living separately and, therefore, he is not obliged to explain the circumstances under which the deceased had died, as the husband of the deceased is more responsible for explaining the circumstances under which the deceased had died.
It is also submitted that the applicant is aged about 19 years and is not carrying any criminal history. He is in jail in this case since 07.08.2021 and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty and also there is no hope that the trial of the case may be concluded in near future.
Shri Yuga Raj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/informant, however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is accused of committing heinous offence and identically placed co-accused person namely Jang Bahadur (father-in-law) has been denied bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail having regard to the material/evidence collected by the investigating officer against the applicant.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Jang Bahadur, who was the father-in-law of the deceased, as the applicant is of very young age and by any stretch of imagination could not be the beneficiary of the dowry which was being allegedly demanded from the deceased.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that applicant is the 'Devar' (brother-in-law) of deceased. The law with regard to the 'parity' in disposal of the bail applications is quite settled and there could not be any parity in rejection of the bail applications. In 'Yunis and other vs. State of U.P.' reported in 1999 SCC OnLine All 1389 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the Judgment pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court in 'Nanha vs. State of U.P.' , 1993 Cri Lj has held as under:-
"7. where the case of co-accused is identically similar and another co-accused has been granted bail by the Court, the said co-accused is entitled to be released on bail on account of desirability of consistency and equity. As regards the principle of parity in matter of rejection of bail application, it may be observed that law of parity is a desirable rule. In matter of release on bail to the co-accused may be applied where the case of the co-accused is identically similar, but cannot be applied for rejecting the bail application of co-accused. A co-accused cannot be denied bail, merely on the ground that the bail of another accused has been rejected by the Court earlier, the obvious reason being that while the earlier bail order denying bail to another co-accused was passed, the latter co-accused applying for bail was not heard.
"The prior rejection of the bail application of one of the accused cannot preclude the Court from granting bail to another accused whose case has not been considered at the earlier occasion. The accused who comes up with the prayer for bail, and who had no opportunity of being heard or placing material before the Court at the time when the bail of another accused was heard and rejected, cannot be prejudiced in any other manner by such rejection."
8. Thus the law of parity may be applied in granting bail to a co-accused, but cannot be invoked in rejecting the bail application of another co-accused."
Thus the case of the instant applicant is to be assessed independently on the touchstone of settled principles for disposal of bail applications.
Applicant admittedly is the 'devar' (brother-in-law of the deceased). He is aged about 19 years, thus, he is of very young age. The demand of Rs. 1 lac and a 'gold chain' has been shown in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and general allegations of demand of dowry and committing cruelty in lieu there of has been levelled against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R., thus, admittedly no overt act has been attributed to the applicant. A copy of the 'parivar register' has also been placed on record by learned counsel for the applicant, perusal of which shows that the instant applicant along with his parents and brothers was living separately. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the husband who should have been with the deceased at the relevant point of time, is more responsible to explain the circumstances wherein the deceased had sustained injuries and had died and as the applicant was living separately, he could not be compelled to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. Moreover, the death of the deceased had not occurred on account of injuries, but due to the 'asphyxia' which was the result of 'antemortem hanging' and, thus, it was the husband of the deceased on whom the responsibility to explain the circumstances, leading to the death of the deceased is heavier than other co-accused persons. The offence of Section 304-B I.P.C. is an offence which changes gravity according to the relation of the accused with the deceased and also on availability of opportunity and occasion to subject the deceased to cruelty, in lieu of demand of dowry. Applicant is not having any criminal history and has already been detained for about one year in prison in this case and it is not expected, having regard to the pendency of the cases in the Trial Courts of the State that the trial of this case may be concluded in near future. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the accused/applicant- Sonpal involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 15.7.2022/Praveen