Imran @ Sonu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38948 of 2023 Applicant :- Imran @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava,Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Imran @ Sonu, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 515 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Tilamod, District Ghaziabad.

¶4The FIR of the matter was lodged on 07.10.2022 by Sushila Devi against the applicant alleging therein that her daughter Khusbu was married to the applicant on 15.01.2018. After marriage there was a demand of dowry and the deceased used to be tortured and beaten. On 03.10.2022 there was a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs from her which was refused by her and then she used to be beaten her by the applicant. On 04.10.2022 the deceased came to her house and on seeing the first informant started crying and stated of a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs. On 05.10.2022 she received an information that her daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased Khusbu but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per the FIR, the deceased died on 05.10.2022. It is argued that the inquest on the body was conducted on 05.10.2022 which started at 20:32 hours to 09:30 on 06.10.2022 in which Smt. Sushila Devi the first informant is one of the witnesses and her name appears at serial No. 2 in the list of witnesses. The opinion of the said punch witnesses is that the deceased appears to have committed suicide. It is argued that subsequently the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted wherein the deceased found to have had a single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. It is argued that till that time there was no complaint whatsoever by the informant regarding that the death is unnatural. Subsequently on 07.10.2022 which is after a period of two days the present FIR has been lodged. It is argued that the delay of two days in lodging of the FIR is totally unexplained. It is argued that the demand of dowry has seen the light of the day for the first time when the FIR has been lodged. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 36 of the affidavit and is in jail since 08.10.2022.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband and there are allegations against him.

¶7After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the inquest on the body was conducted on 05.10.2022 which started at 20:32 hours upto

06.10.2022 till 09:30 in which Smt. Sushila Devi the first informant is one of the witnesses wherein she has not disclosed about the said incident. The opinion of the said punch witnesses is that the deceased appears to have committed suicide. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted wherein she was found to have had a single ligature mark and the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. There was no complaint whatsoever by the first informant regarding the demand of dowry earlier.

¶8Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9Let the applicant Imran @ Sonu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(v) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶10The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶11The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.11.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad