Allowed

Ram Bharose v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/38452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for Ram Bharose, the aged father-in-law of the deceased in a dowry death case. The Court held that vague dowry allegations and the absence of external injuries on the deceased warranted release, applying Supreme Court precedents regarding aged accused.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with specific conditions regarding attendance and evidence.

Ram Bharose Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178958

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38452 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Bharose Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Vashistha, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Ram Bharose seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.110 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sidhpura, district Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. Though the applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused, inasmuch as, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused on 18.06.2023 yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The deceased was a short tampered lady and she has taken the extreme step to commit suicide by hanging herself. The death of the deceased is a suicidal death as is clearly evident from the post-mortem report of the deceased. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of body of the deceased, the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark, no other external antemortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. Attention of the Court was invited to paragraph 12 of the afÏdavit filed in support of bail application and on the basis of thereof it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that since the applicant is an old man aged about 72 years therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 CrPC. Even otherwise, the applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of additional dowry. The allegations made in the FIR with regard to demand of additional dowry are vague and bald allegations. No material particulars in respect of the same have been mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The said fact is not contradicted by the learned A.G.A. The applicant

¶10

could not have even abeted, instigated or conspired in the commission of crime. There is nothing on record to conclude that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant. Attention of the Court was then invited to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 and on basis thereof the learned counsel for applicant urged that since material particulars with regard to alleged demand of additional dowry are conspicuous by their absence in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses so examined, the same are therefore liable to be ignored by this Court at this stage. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in custody since 13.06.2023. As such, he has undergone more than three months of incarceration. The police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC has already been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystalized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant. He, therefore, contends that the 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.

¶11

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently 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. 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.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, the applicant is aged about 72 years, the averment which has been categorically pleaded in paragraph 12 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application the learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions received by him could not dispute such averment, therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 CrPC, the allegations made in the FIR with regard to alleged demand of additional dowry are vague and bald being devoid of material particulars therefore, in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others (supra) the same are prima facie liable to be ignored at this stage, the applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry, the bona fide of the applicant is explicit from the fact that except for the ligature mark no other

¶13

external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased by the autopsy surgeon, in spite of the fact that the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted as such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystalized, yet the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such incriminating circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the proceeding of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 Live Law (SC) 373 (paragraph 5) , the clean antecedents of the applicant and the period of incarceration undergone, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Ram Bharose , involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 :-

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(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 sufÏcient 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

However, 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.9.2023. Rks.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Bharose v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bharose v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Up vs Govind Das Sutradhar and Others

Raj Kumar Tiwari @ Vikki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bebi Vs State of U.P.

Aarif Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.