# Raj Bahadur v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1059 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-28 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-bahadur-v-state-of-u-p-44045 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 7 All. Raj Bahadur Vs State Of U.P. 1059 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 are the repetition of the previous order which was in the nature of the direction to issue non bailable warrant the aforesaid impugned orders cannot be allowed to stand as coercive process was specifically put in abeyance by way of order passed by this court on 3.5.2016. Therefore, it is deemed proper that the orders dated 1.6.2016 and 14.6.2016 should stand quashed. This court is constrained to pass such order only in order to uphold the Majesty of this court and remind the court below to be more careful in future and ensure that the direction issued by the court must be adhered to. 10. But as the applicants have not surrendered before the court as yet and have not obtained their bail despite ample opportunity having been given to them, the court below shall be at liberty to issue fresh warrants or any coercive measures against the applicants as it may deem fit in order to procure the attendance of the applicants-accused. 11. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of. 12. It is hoped that the applicants shall keep it in mind that the solemn jurisdiction of this court is not meant to be misutilised in order to find ways and means to somehow evade the process of law under the garb of some judicial order. Protective directions granted by this court are in the nature of a benevolent exercise of its judicial power intending to safeguard the constitutional rights of individual liberty which are sacrosanct in the view of this court. This Court in order to meet the ends of justice exercises its inherent jurisdiction and ungrudgingly comes forward in appropriate cases to extend its facilitating arm to the accused so that he may submit to the jurisdiction of the court without being harassed by any kind of executive high handedness of the police. But this judicial magnanimity must not be mistaken or misunderstood to be a ploy which can ever be allowed to be abused as a method to gain time and keep fleeing from justice. For any such unscrupulous accused the law courts have enough powers and strong arms to catch them and be brought to justice. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 21062 Of 2015 Raj Bahadur ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicant: D.P. Singh, Rajiv Dwivedi, Shanker Suan 1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate Bail - Dowry Death - Accidental Fire - Dying Declaration exonerating accused - Delay in lodging FIR - Period of detention - No likelihood of early conclusion of trial - Sections 498-A and 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 1. Bail - Dowry death - Grant of bail - Factors to be considered - Overall view of facts and circumstances - Nature of evidence - Period of detention - Likelihood of early conclusion of trial - Possibility of tampering with evidence: In determining a bail application in a case under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court must take an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence, the period of detention already undergone by the applicant, the likelihood or otherwise of early conclusion of trial, and the absence or presence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence. Bail is not to be refused mechanically in serious cases without due consideration of these factors. Held, on an overall assessment of these factors, bail granted. 2. Dying declaration - Statement of deceased exonerating husband - Husband absent at time of incident - Accidental fire - Effect on bail: Where, before her death, the deceased herself recorded a dying declaration stating that at the time of the incident the applicant-husband was not present in the house and that she caught fire accidentally on account of a kerosene oil lamp falling upon her, and when she raised hue and cry her husband and neighbours rushed to quench the fire, and where the deceased was immediately rushed to hospital by family members of the accused - such a dying declaration exonerating the accused is a significant factor weighing in favour of the applicant at the stage of bail. The Court is not required to conclusively adjudicate upon the weight or admissibility of the dying declaration at the bail stage, but its existence is a relevant circumstance which cannot be ignored. 3. Delay in lodging FIR - No complaint by parents of deceased at the time of incident - Subsequent filing of case - Inference at bail stage: Where the incident is stated to have occurred on 14.11.2014 but the FIR was lodged as late as 05.12.2014 - a delay of approximately three weeks - and where, significantly, the parents of the deceased lodged no complaint at the time of the incident despite being aware of the circumstances of her death, the delay in filing the FIR coupled with the absence of any contemporaneous complaint is a factor that a court may appropriately weigh at the stage of considering bail. The delay, on the facts of the present case, lends credence to the defence submission of false implication after deliberation and confabulation. 4. Period of detention - No criminal antecedents - Inordinate delay in conclusion of trial - Right to personal liberty - Bail granted: The period of detention already undergone by an accused is a material consideration in a bail application. Where the applicant has been in custody since 18.12.2014 (over one and a half years at the time of the application) and has no criminal history whatsoever, and where, in view of heavy pendency of cases in the court, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial, the continued incarceration of the applicant would cause serious prejudice to his right to personal liberty. These factors, in the aggregate and read with the other circumstances of the case including the dying declaration and the delay in lodging the FIR, justify the grant of bail subject to appropriate conditions. 7 All. Raj Bahadur Vs State Of U.P. 1061 5. Bail conditions - Duty to cooperate with trial - Non-tampering with evidence - Personal appearance - Breach of conditions - Power of court below to cancel bail: When enlarging an accused on bail, the Court may impose conditions requiring: (i) the applicant not to tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever; and (ii) the applicant to appear personally on each and every date fixed before the trial court, his personal presence not being exempted unless the court itself deems it appropriate in the interest of justice. It is further clarified that in the event of breach of any of the conditions imposed, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for cancellation of bail. The applicant was directed to execute a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 6. Observations in bail order - Not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case: Any observations made by the High Court while disposing of a bail application are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case at the time of trial. RESULT: Bail application allowed. The applicant Raj Bahadur, involved in Case Crime No. 243 of 2014, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot, directed to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions. (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the incident is said to have taken place on 14.11.2014 while the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 5.12.2014. Further submission is that actually the deceased has died as a result of accidental burn because the kerosene oil lamp had fallen down upon her. It was also submitted that deceased was rushed to the hospital by the family members immediately after the occurrence, and it was the brother of the applicant, who got her admitted in the hospital. Further submission is that she struggled for life for a few days but ultimately she succumbed to the burn injuries. It has been further submitted that before her death her statement (dying declaration) was recorded in which she had also stated that at the time of the incident, the applicant was not present in the house and she caught fire because of falling of kerosene oil lamp accidentally upon her and when she raised hue and cry, her husband and other neighbours rushed to quench the fire. Submission is that as the fact of accidental fire was known to the parents to the deceased also that is why they did not lodge any complaint against the applicant at that time and it was only after due deliberation and confabulation that this false case has been lodged against the applicant. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has already spent more than one and half years in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 18.12.2014 having no criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, 1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 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. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 5. 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, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Raj Bahadur, involved in Case Crime No. 243 of 2014, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Raipura, District- Chitrakoot, 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. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 7. 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 applicant's bail. 8. 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. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 21690 Of 2016