Rajveer v. State of U.P

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46429 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Patel,Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶2Perused the record.

¶3This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Rajveer seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.287 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304 I.P.C., Police Station-Qadarchowk, District-Budaun during the pendency of trial.

¶4Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 19.04.2023, a delayed F.I.R. dated 24.07.2023 was lodged by first informant Dharmendra (brother of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.287 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304 I.P.C., Police Station-Qadarchowk, District-Budaun. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Rajveer, Ramwati, Bhuri and Survendra have been nominated as named accused.

¶5Learned counsel for applicant submits that even though applicant is the husband of the deceased a named and charge sheeted accused inasmuch as the charge sheet has been submitted on 10.09.2023 against applicant yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased 18 years ago. The occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings had occurred at the spur of the moment on account of grave and sudden provocation. There is no calculated mens rea with the applicant to commit the crime in question nor the same is the outcome of any pre planned act of the applicant. As such, the crime in question is covered under the four exception to Section 300 I.P.C. Resultantly, offence complained shall amount to culpable homicide not mounting to murder. No weapon was used in the commission of crime either. As such offence complained of shall not travel beyond 304 part-II. Attention of the Court was then invited to the statement of the daughter of the first informant wherein she has clearly detailed the manner of the occurrence. On the above premise, he contends that is unfortunate that the deceased was died even though she did not receive any external ante-mortem injuiry.

¶6Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 07.08.2023. As such he has undergone more than two months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶7Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The complicity of the applicant in the crime in question is established as per the statement of the daughter of the first informant applicant himself. The deceased is wife of the applicant. It is thus urged that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of the applicant. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶8Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of applicant, gravity and nature of offence and accusation made coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings had occurred at the spur of the moment on account of grave and sudden provocation, there is no calculated mens rea with the applicant to commit the crime in question the same is not the outcome of any pre planned act of the applicant either, therefore, the crime in question is covered under the four exception to Section 300 I.P.C., the applicant is liable to be convicted for an offence of culpable homicide not mounting to murder, the offence complained of shall not be travel beyond 304 part II, the deceased was not been assaulted with any sharp edged weapon or any firearm, there is no external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased, yet inspite of the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted, the statement of the daughter of applicant as noted above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial, the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharastra & Anr. 2023 Live Law (SC) 373 (paragraph 5), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶9Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶10Let the applicant-Rajveer, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶11However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 Imtiyaz High Court of Judicature at Allahabad