Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 165 (ALL)

Virendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2022-02-08

VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J. 1. Called on. Learned counsel Sri Rajat Pratap Singh, Advocate appeared physically in hearing of the Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2046 of 2021. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Ravish Chandra Mishra, Advocate for and on behalf of the State is also present. 2. The present bail application is moved on behalf of the accused-applicant-Virendra Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 397 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Behta Gokul, District Hardoi. 3. The occasion to present the bail application before this Court has arisen on rejection of first bail plea before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi on 18.12.2020. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavit in the matter have duly been exchanged between the contesting parties. The case is ripe for hearing. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the First Information Report, statements on record and other materials as well as counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA. 6. Briefly stating the case emerging from the First Information Report lodged by Smt. Rajrani w/o late Jaswant Singh with regard to her daughter Sanju Devi married to accused-applicant Virendra that on 21.10.2020 the complainant on information of unnatural death of her daughter when went to the house of in-laws of the deceased, she found her daughter hanging from ceiling. 7. Learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2020 for no fault of him. The present accused-applicant has no role and involvement in the aforesaid unnatural death of his wife as complained of by her mother-in-law either by instigation and abatement to commit suicide or otherwise. In para 10 and 11 of the bail application he has submitted the explanation for committing suicide by the deceased, his wife Sanju Devi which is quoted hereunder: "10. That by the passage of time, when the husband and in-laws of Arti Devi came to know about the aforesaid incident then they started extending threat to desert Arti Devi, giving divorce to her. 11. That due to the aforesaid reason, the deceased was very much frustrated and in the night of 20/21.10.2020, when the frustration of the deceased reached at its peak then she committed suicide by hanging in hut, situated outside the house of applicant." 8. 11. That due to the aforesaid reason, the deceased was very much frustrated and in the night of 20/21.10.2020, when the frustration of the deceased reached at its peak then she committed suicide by hanging in hut, situated outside the house of applicant." 8. The aforesaid explanation finding place in para 10 and 11 of the affidavit in support of the bail application finds corroboration from the post-mortem report on record wherein there is only ligature mark is reported in the ante-mortem injury seen on the body of the deceased. There is no other external injury showing any cruelty or otherwise. Further corroboration of the argument of the learned counsel that the wife of accused-applicant Sanju Devi committed suicide by reason of her daughter's bad luck and threats having been given by her in-laws when they came to knowledge about the fact of her elopement with some other person, namely, Pushpendra Rathore, earlier to marriage. An FIR to this effect was also lodged by the deceased against Pushpendra Rathore and other co-accused in Case Crime No. 317 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After recovering by the police from the accused Pushpendra Rathore, the girl was handed over to the complainant, the deceased in the present case who got her married but her in-laws when came to know about her earlier case, they became rude to the daughter of the deceased. Due to this situation, under the deep sympathy and pathetic, the wife of the present accused-applicant and mother of the daughter in hot water caused the suicide by her on 21.10.2020. 9. Learned AGA from the counter affidavit and other materials on record could not show the fact of active instigation for abatement on the part of the present accused-applicant to his wife, the deceased, Sanju Devi or any cruelty on his part under compulsion of which the deceased committed suicide. 10. 9. Learned AGA from the counter affidavit and other materials on record could not show the fact of active instigation for abatement on the part of the present accused-applicant to his wife, the deceased, Sanju Devi or any cruelty on his part under compulsion of which the deceased committed suicide. 10. The argument of learned AGA that the instance of cruelty and instigation as well as the abatement by the present accused-applicant to her wife to commit suicide coming from the statement of the brother of the deceased and other native villagers is not able to be considered at this stage because they being not member of the family and inmates of the house cannot see directly the incident of instigation as alleged in their statements or such statements need corroboration from some material evidences proved in the course trial. 11. The case of present accused-applicant is distinguished from that of co-accused Rahul. The present accused-applicant deserves to be granted bail in view of the parameters laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and another - ( 2001 4 SCC 280 ), which are being quoted hereunder:- "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 12. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 12. Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [ (2018) 3 SCC 22 ], I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused-applicant to enlarge him on bail. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without commenting anything on merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. 14. Let applicant-Virendra Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Behta Gokul, District Hardoi, on his furnishing a personal bond worth Rs. 50,000/-and two surety bonds by two different sureties whose social status and economic capacity as to the surety will be subject to the satisfaction and verification of the court concerned, subject to following additional 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. (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 174A 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.