Shekhar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This 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. 88 of 2022, registered at police station Buggawala, District Haridwar.

The applicant-Shekhar is in judicial custody for the offence under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Smt. Aanchal Devi, the younger sister of the informant-Shiv Kumar, was married with the present applicant in the year 2019. A few months after the marriage, she was being harassed by the present applicant and co-accused persons demanding dowry. They strangulated her to death with a rope on 10.02.2022. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to anti-mortem hanging.

Heard Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned counsel with Mr. Vinod Chandra, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The informant, brother of the deceased, was one of the panch witnesses in the inquest proceedings, but, he did not utter a single word about dowry harassment. The deceased, who was short-tempered, had committed suicide in absence of the applicant. The fact, whether the deceased was subjected to the cruelty, and, the said cruelty was soon before her death in respect of demand of dowry, can be ascertained only in trial. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Three prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and, applicant is in judicial custody since 12. 09.2022.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. has opposed the Bail Application. However, he conceded that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

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- Shekhar 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 will 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 her, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.