Mubarak Ali v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52791 of 2023 Applicant :- Mubarak Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶2There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death of his wife by way of hanging.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that it is not a case of hanging, but of suicide. At the time of post-mortem of the deceased, a fetus of three and a half months was found. He submitted that marriage of the deceased with the applicant took place on 21.03.2023 and she committed suicide on 27.05.2023, hence three months period of marriage was not completed at the time of death. It appears that the deceased was pregnant prior to her marriage and thereafter on account of the fact that her pregnancy got disclosed, consequently she had to face social ignominy, hence she committed suicide. The applicant is in jail since 29.05.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶4On the other hand, learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the deceased had relationship with the applicant prior to their marriage, therefore she contacted pregnancy from the applicant only.

¶5After hearing rival submissions of the parties, this Court finds that there is no evidence on record to disclose that deceased had pre-marital relationship with the applicant and that she became pregnant from coming in contact with the applicant. It appears that deceased has contacted pregnancy from some other person prior to her marriage and she committed suicide on the fear of being exposed and consequent social ignominy, which may have followed.

¶6Keeping 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; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; 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.

¶7Let the applicant-Mubarak Ali, involved in S.T. No. 594 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2023, under Sections-498A, 304 of IPC and Sections-3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Kothibhar, District-Maharajganj, 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 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.

(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.

¶8In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶9Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶10Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶11Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days. Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Saif High Court of Judicature at Allahabad