Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1227 (ALL)

Sanjeev @ Sanjaya (Second Bail) v. State of U. P.

2015-05-14

PRATYUSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Pratyush Kumar, J. This is the second bail application. First bail application no.5189 of 2014 has been dismissed in default on 17.12.2014. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. There are general allegations in the F.I.R. From the panchnama and postmortem report, it is prima-facie established that cause of death was hanging, that too in a closed room from where the dead body was taken out after the door was opened from outside. The applicant is an illiterate person, tractor driver by profession. The deceased was an educated person. Due to her marriage with the applicant, she was depressed. The applicant is in jail since 10.10.2013. 4. On behalf of the State, bail has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is the main accused being husband. He was duty bound to take care of his wife. Only few days after 'gauna' she was forced to commit suicide. 5. At present, the materials available on record is the first information report, statement of the first informant i.e. father of the deceased, panchnama, postmortem report and copy of marksheet filed on behalf of the applicant. On these materials, the Court is called upon to adjudicate whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail or not. 6. In the present matter facts are peculiar in nature. The allegations regarding demand of dowry are confined to one day i.e. 2nd September, 2013, either prior to that or thereafter demand for dowry was made it has not been stated. The reason for committing suicide suggested by the applicant also requires to be taken into account and thereafter the probabilities of the case are to be considered. The duty of the applicant to protect the life of his wife due to closed room relieves the applicant in this regard. Admittedly it is a case of hanging. In absence of evidence to show deviant behaviour by the applicant, he deserves to be released on bail. 7. The duty of the applicant to protect the life of his wife due to closed room relieves the applicant in this regard. Admittedly it is a case of hanging. In absence of evidence to show deviant behaviour by the applicant, he deserves to be released on bail. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the applicant Sanjeev @ Sanjaya, involved in Case Crime No. 285 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, be released on bail 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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 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.