Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1663 (ALL)

Suraj Verma v. State of U. P.

2022-10-14

SHAMIM AHMED

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Anand Prakash Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The applicant, Suraj Verma, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and property dispute situated in the same village. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 363 I.P.C. in unknown. There is no any whisper about the applicant in the F.I.R. and even though F.I.R. was lodged after two days of the alleged incident of missing of minor daughter of complainant, that too, without any plausible explanation of delay. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.05.2022 after the dead body of the victim was recovered from a well wherein he developed his case and false story has been made that applicant and the victim were in relation and false promise of marriage was made by the applicant with her, and when the applicant had refused to marry with the victim then she committed suicide. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that entire case is built up by the complainant after the legal advice and afterthought. No such incident, as alleged by the complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., took place. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the postmortem of the deceased no external injury was found on her entire body and cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that reference of mobile No. 9935885772 which was given by the complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not belong to the applicant and he never talked with the deceased on her mobile as alleged by the complainant. The Investigating Agency also failed to collect any evidence against the applicant regarding alleged mobile number and there is no proof that the said number belongs to the applicant. The Investigating Agency also failed to collect any evidence against the applicant regarding alleged mobile number and there is no proof that the said number belongs to the applicant. It is also a case of the applicant that the said mobile number and simcard was never recovered from the possession of application. Further the case of applicant is that he was neither having any love affair with the deceased, nor he has made any promise of marriage with the deceased. The victim has never moved any complaint to any authority that application was in relation with her on giving false promise of marriage and now he had refused for the same. The entire story was developed by the complainant after recovery of dead body of the deceased from the well, otherwise there must be some whisper in the F.I.R. regarding the relation of applicant with the deceased. The main dispute regarding false implication of applicant is that there is a land dispute between the family members of the applicant and the deceased. The said land is adjacent to each other, which is evident from Khatauni of the property, which fact has been stated in para-11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is also a case of the applicant that earlier the mother of the deceased had also threatened the mother of the applicant that she will implicate the applicant in a case, regarding which mother of applicant has moved an application on 19.10.2021 before the concerned police station on 19.10.2021, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that statements of interested witnesses cannot be said to be reliable as they have given false statement in support of the prosecution case. The age of the deceased was in between 17 years and 22 days on the date of occurrence as per her educational certificate. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has never abetted the victim to commit suicide. From perusal of F.I.R. and from the statement of complainant and other witnesses no case under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has never abetted the victim to commit suicide. From perusal of F.I.R. and from the statement of complainant and other witnesses no case under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. Even prosecution has failed to proof that case under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out as the essential ingredients for proving the said provisions are not fulfilled either on perusal of the F.I.R. or on perusal of statements of complainant and witnesses. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated and has been cooked up with malafide intention, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by this Court sympathetically. 13. 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 and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which fact has been stated in para-18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 04.06.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is blinking chances of any early conclusion of trial as till date not a single witness has been examined. 14. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail. 15. The applicant is in jail since 04.06.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is blinking chances of any early conclusion of trial as till date not a single witness has been examined. 14. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail. 15. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that in the F.I.R. there is no whisper regarding complicity of applicant; in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after the dead body of the victim was recovered from a well the complainant developed his case by stating that applicant and the victim were in relation and false promise of marriage was made by the applicant with her, and when the applicant had refused to marry with the victim then she committed suicide; in the postmortem of the deceased no external injury was found on her entire body and cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning; reference of mobile No. 9935885772 which was given by the complainant is also not belong to the applicant, he never talked with the deceased on her mobile as alleged by the complainant and the Investigating Agency also failed to collect any evidence against the applicant regarding alleged mobile number and there is no proof that the said number belongs to the applicant and the said mobile number and simcard was never recovered from the possession of applicant; the entire story was developed by the complainant after recovery of dead body of the deceased from the well, otherwise there must be some whisper in the F.I.R. regarding the relation of applicant with the deceased; there appears force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that main dispute regarding false implication of applicant is that there is a land dispute between the family members of the applicant and the deceased, which is evident from Khatauni of the property, which fact has been stated in para-11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; it is also a case of the applicant that earlier mother of the deceased had also threatened the mother of the applicant that she will implicate the applicant in a case, regarding which mother of applicant has moved an application on 19.10.2021 before the concerned police station on 19.10.2021, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; prosecution has failed to proof that case under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out as the essential ingredients for proving the said provisions are not fulfilled either on perusal of the F.I.R. or on perusal of statements of complainant and witnesses; and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 16. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant, Suraj Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. (3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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. (6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. (8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 18. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 19. 18. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 19. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.