Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 8 (ALL)

Harnam @ Harinath v. State of U. P.

2022-01-04

SHAMIM AHMED

body2022
JUDGMENT : Shamim Ahmed,J. 1. Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 and perused the record. 2. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 349 of 2019 under sections 498A,304B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kothi, District- Barabanki. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution case first informant Ram Sagar lodged a first information report on 14.11.2019 at about 15.53 p.m. that her daughter Shimla Devi was married with accused Lallan son of Harnam in the year 2013 according to Hindu rites and customs. On 11.11.2019, the daughter of first informant Shimla Devi was willing to come at her parents house in village Badhery and had come out three times for the same from her in law's house, but the accused persons who are named in the FIR had forcibly compelled her back to inside the house and on the same day all the accused persons namely Lallan son of Harinam alias Harinath, applicant Harnam alias Harinath son of Gokaran and Krishnawati wife of Harinam alias Harinath had inflicted physical injuries upon the daughter of the first informant and thereafter they strangulated and hanged her as their demand of dowry was not fulfilled. General role has been assigned to all the three accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that mother of the deceased Smt. Dashratha Devi in her statement (Annexure No.3) has stated that wife of applicant Smt. Krishnawati has no role in torturing her daughter (deceased) and the general allegations are levelled against the husband Lallan and present applicant. 5. It was further argued that the applicant is an innocent person and he never demanded dowry from the deceased or first informant (father of the deceased) and was living separately for the last five years after the marriage of his son. In this regard, a copy of Ration Card issued by the Food and Logistic Department, Uttar Pradesh and a certificate issued by the Village Gram Pradhan are annexed with the supplementary affidavit in this bail application, which show that the applicant alongwith his wife Krishnawati are living separately, so there is no question that any demand of dowry is made or any cruelty was caused with the deceased who is daughter-in-law of the applicant. 6. 6. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is an old aged person and at present he is around 66 years of age and is suffering from ailments. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2009 (Bakshish Ram and another Vs. State of Punjab) and referred paragraph 12 of the judgment which is reproduced herein below: "12) With regard to the case of appellant no.2/Dalip Kaur, it has been contended that she is an 80 years old lady and is suffering from various age related ailments. This factual assertion is not disputed by the respondents. Looking at the age of the appellant it does not seem fair to hold her back in jail during the pendency of appeal even if she had been convicted for the alleged serious offence, against which she has come before this Court. furtermore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case and in view of the fact, that the appellant no.2 is an old lady of 80 years of age and she had already been in jail for more than one year, in our view, she is entitled for the relief prayed in the application. Accordingly, we grant interim bail to the second appellant, subject to the appellant furnishing the bail bond as well as surety to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Punjab. The observations made by us is only for the purpose of disposal of this application and we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this appeal." 7. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has already undergone the substantial period of imprisonment and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court prayer was made to release the applicant on bail and has placed reliance of para 2 of the judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463 , the same is reproduced herein below:- "2. The appellants have been convicted under section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463 , the same is reproduced herein below:- "2. The appellants have been convicted under section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore the appeal is disposed of accordingly." 8. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance of para 2 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 , the same is reproduced herein below:- "2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Fridabad." 9. Leaned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases the case of the applicant for grant of bail may be considered sympathetically. 10. Leaned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases the case of the applicant for grant of bail may be considered sympathetically. 10. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no male member in the family of the accused applicant to look-after the grand children of the deceased and on that ground also his bail application may be considered sympathetically. 11. 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 and he is in jail since 15.11.2019 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 12. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegation against the applicant is very serious in nature. 13. 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 and also considering the old age of the applicant and observation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Takht Singh (supra), Kamal (supra) and Bakshish Ram (supra) and larger mandate of 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 U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 14. The prayer for bail is granted. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 14. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant Harnam @ Harinath involved in in Case Crime No. 349 of 2019 Under section 498A,304B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kothi, District-Barabanki be released 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 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. (6) The applicant shall remain present in person, before the trial court on the date 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. (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. 16. (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. 16. 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 the applicant's bail. 17. 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 merits of the case.