Alok Kumar Verma, J
1. This is the Second Bail Application. The First Bail Application (No.1495 of 2021) was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 06.01.2022.
2. Present applicant-accused Rajendra Kumar is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No.117 of 2021 registered at police station Jhabrera, District Haridwar.
3. Informant Manoj Kumar (P.W.2) informed the police station Jhabrera through his written information that his wife Smt. Rita (deceased) went to Manglour with Hushn Jahan (P.W.1) on 16.03.2021. The bank was closed due to strike on the said date. Thereafter, his wife went with Rajendra Kumar (present applicant) on his motorcycle and did not return. Her mobile was also not responding. On the said information, the case was registered under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) on 17.03.2021 against the applicant. During the investigation, dead body of the informant’s wife was recovered. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 19.03.2021. According to the post-mortem report, the death was caused by anti-mortem strangulation. Applicant was arrested. His statement was recorded. He confessed his guilt. Accordingly, a red dupatta of the deceased was recovered at his behest.
4. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kaushal Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
5. Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, learned Senior Advocate contended that after rejection of the First Bail Application, prosecution’s witnesses (P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5) are examined. The present bail application has been filed after change of circumstances, therefore, present Second Bail Application is maintainable. The said submissions of Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate have not been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
6. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, further submitted that the present case rests on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, Hushn Jahan (P.W.1) is the witness of last seen. Hushn Jahan (P.W.1) has stated in her cross-examination that she did not know the applicant. The person from whose bike the deceased went was wearing a mask and a helmet. That’s why she could not recognize that person.
7. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate contended that according to the prosecution, present applicant was arrested on 19.03.2021 and the dupatta of the deceased was recovered on the same day at his behest, whereas according to the prosecution witnesses Manoj Kumar (P.W.2) informant and the husband of the deceased, and, the witness Satpal (P.W.3), applicant was arrested on 17.03.2021 itself. Applicant has no criminal history. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and, he is in custody since 18.03.2021.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the bail application.
9. 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.
10. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason 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.
11. The Bail Application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant-Rajendra 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 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.
13. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
