Single judge of the Allahabad High Court enlarged the applicant on bail in a matrimonial offence arising suo motu from a post-mortem report indicating suicide, relying on Article 21 and Dataram Singh.
The applicant to be enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation in trial and personal presence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 948 of 2021
Applicant :- Mangare @ Abdul Salam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dwijendra Mishra,Ambrish Kumar Dubey,Naqibullah Khan,Vishva Deep Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Mishra,Rama Kant Dixit
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Ankit Mishra, the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
The applicant, Mangare @ Aslam Khan, has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Matera, District Bahraich.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. As per the F.I.R. version the complainant, Sabir Khan had lodged the F.I.R. against Mangare (husband), Mujeeb Khan (father-in-law) and Patluna (motherin-law) with the allegation that he had solemnized the marriage of her daughter, Mantasha with Mangare, S/o Mujeeb Khan three years ago and at the time of marriage he had given sufficient amount of dowry, but the in-laws of her daughter were not satisfied with the dowry given and on account thereof she was being put in mental agony was being maltreated and his daughter was facing brunt of her in-laws in her matrimonial house continuously from the date of her marriage, whenever her daughter used to come at her parental house she informed him about her maltreatment caused by her in-laws. A male child has also been born out of her wedlock who is one year old. On 04.06.2020 at about 5:00 p.m. when the complainant was informed by her daughter on phone that for saving her life, when the complainant was arriving to reach her daughter's matrimonial home he get the information that her daughter has been died. When the complainant reached there he found that the dead body of her daughter was lying in a cot.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
applicant is the husband of the deceased. According to the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. There is only one ligature mark of size 30.0 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. around the neck. No any other injury was found on the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. On the date of incident the applicant was on the shop of his father, when he received a call from his house that his wife after quarreling with his mother on some petty issue had hanged herself with a rope. He was not present at the time of incident.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has not committed any offence. The deceased had hanged herself and had committed suicide as is revealed from her postmortem report as there is only one ligature mark found around her neck, therefore, the entire story set up by the prosecution is totally false and he has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive and to defame the image of the applicant and his family members, therefore, the case of the applicant for grant of bail may be considered sympathetically.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that other coaccused, Smt. Patluna @ Sakarunisha (mother-in-law) and Mujeeb Khan (father-in-law) have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.11.2020 and 24.11.2020 passed in Bail Nos. 8005 and 7055, both of the year 2020, respectively.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 19.07.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer for bail of applicant submitted that the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage and she was being subjected to cruelty in lieu of demand of dowry, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that according to the postmortem report of the deceased except one ligature mark around the neck no other external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased, and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Mangare @ Aslam Khan , involved in Case Crime No. 59 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Matera, District Bahraich, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.
(6) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.
Order Date :- 15.2.2022 Mustaqeem/ Arvind
Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.02.18 15:21:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in a matrimonial offence arising suo motu from a post-mortem report indicating suicide.
Whether the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandate the grant of bail in the present circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and anotherRelied on¶16
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Mangare @ Aslam Khan
State of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
