Rahul Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 95 of 2021, registered at police station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The present applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 304B, 306, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The First Bail Application was rejected on 29.03.2022. After the rejection of the First Bail Application, nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the present Second Bail Application is being considered in the light of the said changed circumstances.

The case of the prosecution is that the informant-Balveer Singh, the father of the deceased, lodged an FIR that the marriage of his daughter, namely, Anju Rani, was solemnized with the present applicant on 26.04.2021. After the marriage, applicant started harassing and torturing the deceased for demand of dowry in the shape of Bolero Jeep. On 14.05.2021, the deceased had made a phone call to her maternal family member and complained regarding her harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. On 15.05.2021, the deceased died in her matrimonial house. The First Information Report was registered on the same day i.e. 15.05.2021. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of her death was asphyxia due to the result of anti-mortem hanging. As per the post-mortem report, semi-digest food was found in her stomach. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

Heard Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the informant/victim.

Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The marriage of the daughter of one Chhiddan Singh (PW1) took place on 14.05.2021. The father of the deceased, his family members and the present applicant had attended that marriage. The deceased did not consider alcohol to be good. On the same day i.e. 14.05.2021, the deceased’s father and the deceased’s brother had gone to her in-laws’ house, where they had consumed liquor with the present applicant. The deceased was feeling very embarrassed because of the alcohol consumed by them at her in-laws’ house and due to this reason she committed suicide.

Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate, further submitted that no certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has been produced in support of the said fact that a phone call of the deceased was received by any member of her parental house on 14.05.2021. The prosecution has examined only nine out of twenty one witnesses, whereas, applicant is in custody since 18.07.2021. He is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, he does not have any criminal antecedents.

Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the informant/victim have opposed the bail application. However, they conceded that deceased’s father and her brother had gone to her in-laws’ house on 14.05.2021, and, applicant has no criminal antecedents.

Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been filed.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.