Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20340 of 2021
Applicant :- Haseen Haidar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.),Sadaful Islam Jafri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This vacation Bench is hearing cases through virtual mode due to surge in Covid-19 cases.
Heard Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sadaful Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. through video conferencing and perused the record.
The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 34, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Nauchandi, District - Meerut after rejection of her Bail Application, vide order dated 8.4.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Meerut.
Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that applicant is related to the deceased as father-in-law, who is retired from Police Department, living separately along with his wife at Muzaffarnagar whereas the deceased and her husband were residing at Meerut where the alleged incident took place. It is further submitted that cause of death is strangulation. He also pointed out that during entire period of marriage, which is about 10 years, there is no allegation whatsoever in regard to the harassment and demand of dowry on applicant. It is further pointed out that the alleged eye witness, who is uncle of the deceased whose statement was recorded after period of one month, has attributed specific role to the applicant also, however, he has not raised any doubt on the applicant earlier though he was a punch witness to the inquest proceedings. Neither any specific allegation is narrated in the First Information Report which was lodged after two days of incident by the informant; father of deceased. Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and is also suffering from old age ailments. He is languishing in jail since 31.1.2021 and there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty, will not commit any offence during bail and will co-operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submits that there is specific allegation against the applicant which is mentioned in the statement of the eye witnesses. Applicant has actively participated in the alleged offence. Deceased has died due to strangulation, however, it is not disputed that the statement of the alleged eye witness (brother of deceased) was recorded after a period of one month whereas no specific allegation was mentioned in the First Information Report lodged by the brother of the alleged eye-witness (father of the deceased).
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 criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court while considering an application for bail must not go into deep 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 count 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 case involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate such 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, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
Considering the rival submissions, 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 applicant is suffering from old age ailments and related to the deceased as father-in-law; that prima facie applicant along with his wife was living separately at Muzaffarnagar whereas the incident occurred at Meerut where deceased was living along with her husband and also considering that statement of the eye-witness was recorded after a period of one month attributing specific role to the applicant, however, no specific allegation was mentioned against the applicant in the First Information Report which was lodged by the brother of the alleged eye-witness (father of the deceased) and keeping in view the prevailing situation due to surge in Covid-19 cases, this Court is of the view that a case of grant of bail is made out.
Let applicant - Haseen Haidar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the 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 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 Trial Court absence of applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
9. 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.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
12. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
13. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
14. 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.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021 Rishabh
Digitally signed by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery Date: 2021.05.20 10:15:07 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad