Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Ateek vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|19 May, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20248 of 2021 Applicant :- Ateek Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sharma,Shahnawaz Akhtar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Satendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. through video conferencing and perused the record.
2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.103 of 2021, under Section 306 of I.P.C., Police Station-Ujhani, District-Budaun after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 9.4.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special SCST, Act, Buduan.
3. Allegations against the applicant are that despite his marriage was fixed with the deceased, he refused to marry her and due to this deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially at 11.55 on the date of occurrence, the mother of the deceased informed the police that her daughter has committed suicide without alleging any allegation on the applicant. However, in the evening of the same day, an F.I.R. was lodged narrating different version wherein the applicant was alleged for the offence of abetment of suicide. He pointed out that there is nothing on record which even suggest that there was mensrea or overtact on the part of the applicant for abetment of suicide committed by the daughter of the informant. It is also pointed out that the deceased wanted to marry some other person with whom she was in love which was opposed by the family members and they forcefully fixed the marriage of their daughter with the applicant. Applicant has no previous criminal history and is a young boy aged about 22 years and he is working as a daily labour. He is languishing in jail since 12.3.2021, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant for committing abetment of suicide which is supported by the statement of the witnessess recorded during investigation.
5. Law on bail is well settled that 'Bail is a rule and jail is an exception'. Bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns liberty of a person. At the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as existence of a prima facie case against the accused, gravity of the allegations, severity of punishment, position and status of the accused, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court while considering an application for bail must not go into deep into merits of the matter such as question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses which can only be tested during the trial. Even ground of parity is one of the above mentioned aspects which are essentially required to be considered. It is also well settled that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner, compassionately and not in whimsical manner. The Court should record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power for an order granting or rejecting bail. Conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. The Court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to victim such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused etc. and shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 230, in this regard.
6. Considering the rival submission, material available on record, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial, absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, relevant factors mentioned above, particularly that at the first opportunity no allegation has been made against the applicant while informing the police about suicide committed by victim. However, later on in the evening, allegation is made against the applicant for abetment of suicide, which is prima- facie general in nature. Even the statement recorded during investigation, prima-facie the essential ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. such as mensrea and any overtact on behalf of the applicant are not specifically made out, applicant has no criminal history and also considering the present situation due to surge in Covid-19 cases, a case of bail is made out.
7. Let the applicant Ateek, 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:-
(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.
8. The 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.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
11. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
12. 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.
13. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021 SB Digitally signed by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery Date: 2021.05.19 16:54:43 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Ateek vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
19 May, 2021
Judges
  • Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Advocates
  • Satendra Kumar Sharma Shahnawaz Akhtar