Raj Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50044 of 2023 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kanchan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was pregnant and on account of complication during pregnancy she consumed aluminum phosphide. Thereafter in attempt to save her life the Doctors had broken her ribs and cause other surgical procedures on her body, as result of which ante mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant informs that while considering bail application of co-accused, Doctor was called by the Court and it was stated by the Doctor that during emergency medical treatment some procedures were performed on the body of the deceased by treating the Doctor. It was clarified that injuries suffered by the deceased was not account of subjection to violence. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that father-in-law of the deceased, Udal Singh, has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.10.2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.41482 Applicant is in jail since 07.06.2023 and has no criminal history. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping 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 and recent judgment dated

11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Raj Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.0041 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hasayan, District-Hathras 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(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, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 30.11.2023 SS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad