Allahabad High Court

Mahesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 November, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185079

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9559 of 2024

Appellant :- Mahesh

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Mahipal Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- D.S. Mani Tripathi,G.A.

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

Mahesh-Appellant has filed this appeal under
Section 14-A(2)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 13.9.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bijnor, whereby his application under
Section 439
Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 20 of 2024, under
Sections 498-A
,
304B
,
,
,
,
,
120B
I.P.C.,
Section 3
/
Dowry Prohibition Act and
Section 3(2)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe s (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Badhapur, District Bijnor, has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on 29.12.2023 when complainant's daughter was travelling with appellant on a motorcycle, they met with an accident and suffered injuries which resulted in death of complainant's daughter. Learned counsel for appellant has further argued that the couple was found lying on the roadside when they were taken to the hospital and after death of complainant's daughter, appellant and his parents have been falsely implicated for alleged commission of offences punishable under
section 304B
,
120B
I.P.C. and
Section 3(2)(v)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel submits that it is not a case of harassment or demand of dowry, therefore, the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under
section 304B
IPC would not be made out, but ignoring the defects in the prosecution case, the trial court has refused the concession of bail to the appellant vide impugned order dated 13.9.2024. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 21.8.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5064 of 2024 (Annexure No.10) and submitted that co-accused-Raghuveer Singh and Harwati @ Harwatia of the applicant have already been released on regular bail, therefore, the appellant also deserves the similar concession. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set-aside and the appellant be released on bail.

Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behlaf of complainant-respondent no.2, which is taken on record.

The prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant who argued that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the two-wheeler driven by appellant was struck from behind by any other vehicle, as no damage to the two-wheeler has been noticed. Learned counsel for the complainant refers to the FIR and submitted that the complainant's daughter had given complaint dated 11.10.2023 before the police during her lifetime regarding her harassment on account of demand of dowry, therefore, the presumption under
section 113-B
of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be attracted and considering the gravity of the offence, the Special Court, Bijnor has rightly refused the concession of bail to the accused-appellant. However, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for complainant that the earlier complaint by the deceased does not contain allegation relating to demand of dowery. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this court finds that according to the statements of Veer Singh and Karan Singh recorded during investigation the complainant's daughter and her husband (Mahesh) were found lying on the roadside in injured condition when they were taken to the hospital in an ambulance. The charges set-up by the prosecution that the death of the deceased is homicidal or accidental would be tested on the basis of prosecution evidence and the said onus is yet to be discharged, therefore, at this stage, the further detention of the appellant may not be necessary as the conclusion of the trial would consume considerable time. The material witnesses in this case are either the complainant or official witnesses and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. A reading of the impugned order would show that the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Bijnor has erroneously declined the concession of regular bail to the appellant and the said order is not sustainable. The co-accused have already been released on regular bail, therefore, on the principle of the parity, the appellant also deserves bail.

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 13.9.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under
Section 439
Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellant- Mahesh, be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The appeal is allowed.

Order Date :- 26.11.2024

P.S.Parihar