Allahabad High Court
Sumit Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. on 23 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. - 58766 of 2022 Applicant :- Sumit Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Gupta,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1.Heard Mrs. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Markandey Singh, Brief Holder for State and perused the record.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.275 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Sambhal, District-Sambhal after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 30.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi.
3. In the present case informant (father of deceased) lodged an F.I.R. against 9 named accused including applicant (husband of victim) alleging that accused persons have demanded dowry and caused hurt as well as made an attempt of murder.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it was a case of partial hanging and the applicant himself rushed her wife to hospital however, despite best of treatment, she survived only for four days. According to postmortem report, immediate cause of death was "Septicemia Shock". She further submits that Pus was oozing out from both kidneys from cut surface on sqeezing. She further submitted that marriage was of 10 years old and applicant has a child aged about 8 years. After investigation, allegation of main offence under Section 304 I.P.C. was only made against the applicant, whereas allegation on other accused was of other offence. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 17.8.2022, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and referred to statement of son of deceased that there was a fight between their parents and his mother was lying on the ground. He also referred to postmoretem report that there were nine antemortem injuries and there are independent witness also that applicant and other co-accused have demanded dowry.
6.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 not 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)
7. In the present case, after ten years of marriage, deceased i.e. wife of applicant was admitted in the hospital which appears to be a case of partial hanging with certain injuries and she survived only for four days and as referred above, immediate cause of death was " Septicemia Shock" and Pus was oozing out from both kidneys from cut surface on sqeezing, as well as there is an evidence that there was a fight between applicant and deceased on the date of occurrence and taking note of argument of counsel for applicant the case may not travel beyond Section 304 Part II I.P.C., as well as that the applicant has to look after his eight year old child, a case of bail is made out.
8. Let the applicant-Sumit Chaudhary, 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 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.
(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 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 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 the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
9. 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.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023 SB