Allahabad High Court
Gama Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11153 of 2021
Applicant :- Gama Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rudra Kant Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri MPS Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rudra Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This is second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26586 of 2019 (Gama Chauhan vs. State of U.P.).
This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Gama Chauhan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2017, under Section 498-A, 328, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kaptanganj, District Kushi Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died as she was a mentally retarded person and had even attempted suicide earlier. Paragraph 12 of the affidavit has been placed before this Court. It is argued that trial in the present case has started in which the first informant Khoob Lal has been examined as P.W.-1 who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is argued that the deceased was not found to have received any injury and the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. In the viscera report Aluminium Phosphide was found. It is argued that since the first informant has not supported the prosecution case, the implication of the applicant is false. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 and is in jail since 06.02.2017.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Neelam. The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2015. The deceased died in her matrimonial house on 02.02.2017. The death is unnatural. It is argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and as such was under a burden which was to be discharged by him regarding reasons for his wife committing suicide.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial house within 07 years of marriage. The trial in the present matter has started in which as per the learned counsel for the applicant two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in trial. The narration for paragraph 12 regarding reasons of the deceased committing suicide is not corroborated by any cogent evidence.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
