# Harnam @ Harinath v. State of U.P. 6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 5
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4507 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harnam-harinath-v-state-of-u-p-6-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-48039
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Applicant-father in law of the deceased-no
specific role-living separately since last five
years after the marriage-in view of period of
detention already undergone, unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and unlikelihood of
tampering of evidence-Applicant enlarged on
bail.

Bail granted. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Harnam @ Harinath Vs. State of U.P.
5
established. Gravity of offence alone
cannot be taken for refusal of bail even
severity of punishment is not material for
consideration of bail plea.

18. Keeping into mind the valuable right
of personal liberty and the fundamental
principle not to disbelieve a person to be
innocent unless held guilty and if he is not
arraigned with the charge of an offence for
which the law has put on him a reverse burden
of proving his innocence, as it is held in the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in
the submission of learned counsel for the bailapplicant to enlarge him on bail.

19.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, perusing the record,
considering
the
nature
of
allegations,
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and looking into the complicity of the
applicant-accused in the offence, the gravity of
offence, severity of punishment without
expressing any opinion on the merit of the
case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

20. Let applicant (Ajay @ Anoop @
Ashok Kumar Gharadiya), involved in Case
Crime No.061 of 2015, under Sections 302,
201, 34 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station
Alambagh, District Lucknow be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- and two reliable sureties of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following additional
conditions, which are being imposed in the
interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates 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.

(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 sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against him
under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the
liberty of bail during trial and in order to
secure his presence, proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and if the
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 of
the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on the
dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) 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.
----------
(2022)01ILR A5
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4507 of 2020

Harnam @ Harinath ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Vinay Kumar Verma, Suresh Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Applicant-father in law of the deceased-no
specific role-living separately since last five
years after the marriage-in view of period of
detention already undergone, unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and unlikelihood of
tampering of evidence-Applicant enlarged on
bail.

Bail granted. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. In Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2009 (Bakshish
Ram & anr.Vs. State of Punjab)

2.Takht Singh Vs. St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC 463

3. Kamal Vs. St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526

4. Dataram Singh Vs. St. of U.P.& anr., reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 and
perused the record.

2. Applicant has moved the present
bail application seeking bail in Case Crime
No. 349 of 2019 under sections 498A,304B
IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station-Kothi, District- Barabanki.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that as per the prosecution case
first informant Ram Sagar lodged a first
information report on 14.11.2019 at about
15.53 p.m. that her daughter Shimla Devi
was married with accused Lallan son of
Harnam in the year 2013 according to
Hindu rites and customs. On 11.11.2019,
the daughter of first informant Shimla Devi
was willing to come at her parents house in
village Badhery and had come out three
times for the same from her in law's house,
but the accused persons who are named in
the FIR had forcibly compelled her back to
inside the house and on the same day all the
accused persons namely Lallan son of
Harinam alias Harinath, applicant Harnam
alias Harinath son of Gokaran and
Krishnawati wife of Harinam alias Harinath
had inflicted physical injuries upon the
daughter of the first informant and
thereafter they strangulated and hanged her
as their demand of dowry was not fulfilled.
General role has been assigned to all the
three accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that mother of the deceased
Smt. Dashratha Devi in her statement
(Annexure No.3) has stated that wife of
applicant Smt. Krishnawati has no role in
torturing her daughter (deceased) and the
general allegations are levelled against the
husband Lallan and present applicant.

5. It was further argued that the
applicant is an innocent person and he
never demanded dowry from the deceased
or first informant (father of the deceased)
and was living separately for the last five
years after the marriage of his son. In this
regard, a copy of Ration Card issued by the
Food and Logistic Department, Uttar
Pradesh and a certificate issued by the
Village Gram Pradhan are annexed with the
supplementary
affidavit
in
this
bail
application, which show that the applicant
alongwith his wife Krishnawati are living
separately, so there is no question that any
demand of dowry is made or any cruelty
was caused with the deceased who is
daughter-in-law of the applicant.
1 All. Harnam @ Harinath Vs. State of U.P.
7

6. It was further argued by the learned
counsel for the applicant that applicant is
an old aged person and at present he is
around 66 years of age and is suffering
from ailments. In this regard, learned
counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.
969 of 2009 (Bakshish Ram and another
Vs. State of Punjab)
and referred
paragraph 12 of the judgment which is
reproduced herein below:

"12) With regard to the case of
appellant no.2/Dalip Kaur, it has been
contended that she is an 80 years old lady
and is suffering from various age related
ailments. This factual assertion is not
disputed by the respondents. Looking at the
age of the appellant it does not seem fair to
hold her back in jail during the pendency of
appeal even if she had been convicted for
the alleged serious offence, against which
she has come before this Court. furtermore,
in the peculiar circumstances of this case
and in view of the fact, that the appellant
no.2 is an old lady of 80 years of age and
she had already been in jail for more than
one year, in our view, she is entitled for the
relief
prayed
in
the
application.
Accordingly, we grant interim bail to the
second appellant, subject to the appellant
furnishing the bail bond as well as surety to
the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions
Judge,
Jalandhar,
Punjab.
The
observations made by us is only for the
purpose of disposal of this application and
we make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of this
appeal."

7. It was further argued by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has already undergone the substantial
period of imprisonment and in view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court prayer
was made to release the applicant on bail
and has placed reliance of para 2 of the
judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC
463, the same is reproduced herein below:-

"2. The appellants have been
convicted under section 302/149 , Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life . Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one. After the expiry of one year the
second application was filed but the same
has been rejected by the impugned order. It
is submitted that the appellants are already
in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. there
is no possibility of early hearing of the
appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid
circumstances the applicants be released
on bail to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. the
appeal is disposed of accordingly."

8. Further, the learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance of para 2 of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana,
2004 (13) SCC 526, the same
is
reproduced herein below:-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Fridabad."

9. Leaned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid cases the case of the applicant
for grant of bail may be considered
sympathetically.

10. It was further argued by the
learned counsel for the applicant that there
is no male member in the family of the
accused applicant to look-after the grand
children of the deceased and on that ground
also his bail application may be considered
sympathetically.

11. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the applicant have also been
placed
forth
before
the
Court.
The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
applicant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed out
that the accused is not having any criminal
history and he is in jail since 15.11.2019 and
that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases
in the Court, there is no likelihood of any
early conclusion of trial.

12. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that the allegation
against the applicant is very serious in nature.

13. After perusing the record in the light
of the submissions made at the bar and after
taking an overall view of all the facts and
circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence, the period of detention already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence
and also considering the old age of the
applicant and observation given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Takht
Singh
(supra),
Kamal
(supra)
and
Bakshish Ram (supra) and larger mandate
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3
SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the
applicant may be enlarged on bail.

14. The prayer for bail is granted. The
application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant Harnam @
Harinath involved in in Case Crime No.
349 of 2019 Under section 498A,304B IPC
and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
police station Kothi, District- Barabanki be
released on bail on his executing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make
any attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.
1 All. Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh Vs. State of U.P.
9

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself
deems it fit to do so in the interest of
justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.

(5) 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. is issued and the 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 of
the Indian Penal Code.

(6) The applicant shall remain
present in person, before the trial court on the
date fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) 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.

(7) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8)
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.

16. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
the applicant's bail .

17.

It
is
clarified
that
the
observations, if any, made in this order are
strictly confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2022)01ILR A9
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20529 of
2021
connected with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19926 of
2021
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21132 of
2021
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21208 of
2021

Neeraj Mandal @ Rakesh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Deepankar Chaudhary, Sri Tripurari Pal,
Sri I.M. Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Chandra
Prakash
Yadav,
Sri
Gaurav
Gautam, Sri Vivek Mishra

Accused have allgedly misappropriated
a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the account