Ramhet v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43501 of 2023 Applicant :- Ramhet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ramhet, with a prayer to release him on bail in Sessions Trial No. 188/2023 Case Crime No.248/2023 under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun, during pendency of trial. FIR was lodged on 17.04.2023 with regard to incident dated December, 2006 alleging commission of offence of causing dowry death of wife of co-accused, Santosh Omre. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that FIR has been lodged after 17 years of the alleged incident on account of ulterior motives. He has submitted that applicant has no concern with co-accused, Santosh Omre. One, Shiv Narayana, was living with the applicant after his wife left him and Shiv Narayana executed the registered will in favour of his sons, Ravindra and Dharmendra, regarding him movable and immovable property on 22.08.2019. It has further been submitted that co-accused, Santosh, is the step son of Shiv Narayana, who had willed his properties to the son of the applicant. Aforesaid Shiv Narayana died on 27.10.2022. Thereafter, the informant was pressurizing the applicant to transfer property in his name since his daughter was married to co-accused, Santosh Omre. Santosh Omre, was son of Smt. Rama and late Shiv Narayana, but his mother left Shiv Narayana and was living with Natthu Nai alongwith co-accused, Santosh Omre, when he got married to the deceased. It has been submitted that applicant is aged about 70 years and only on the account of greed of property, he has been implicated in this case by the by the informant. There is no explanation of delay of 17 years in lodging of FIR. The identity of the dead body of woman recovered in the year 2007 was uncertain. Even after the recovery of unknown body of female in 2007 no FIR was lodged, it has been lodged now on 17.04.2023. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since

18.04.2023. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

(v) 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Abhishek High Court of Judicature at Allahabad