Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 13410 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20153 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gagan Pratap Singh, Anuruddh Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Som Veer
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

There is allegation against the applicant that he has caused dowry death of his wife.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of absolute false implication. He has submitted that the deceased was suffering from gynaecological problem and was under treatment since last about six years as clear from number of prescriptions, investigations and pathology reports of the deceased brought on record as Annexure- 5 to the bail application. The death of the deceased took place after 7 years and two days of a marriage with the applicant and therefore implication of the applicant under Section 304-B IPC is not in accordance with law. The information about the critical condition of the deceased was given by the applicant on 08.05.2021 to the informant on phone on 07:12:53 pm to 07:49:48 pm. The informant is a practising advocate at Agra District Court and he has falsely implicated the applicant who is a Chartered Accountant. Charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant and other family members. In the viscera of the deceased, aluminium phosphide has been found which may have been consumed by her on account of ill-health.

Counsel for the applicant has finally submitted that the deceased was taken to National Hospital on 08.05.2021 at 08:45 pm and was found to be brought dead. The information was given to the police on 09.05.2021 at 03:25 am about her death. He has submitted that viscera report of the deceased is doubtful since as per parcha no. 3 dated 11.05.2021 the viscera of the deceased was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra on 12.05.2021 but the viscera report dated 01.07.2021 shows that the sample was sent to FSL, Agra on 10.05.2021. The aforesaid viscera was received by a special messenger on 11.05.2021 by FSL, Agra. He has submitted that if the investigating officer sent the viscera report on 12.05.2021 how the sample was sent on 10.05.2021 and received on 11.05.2021 by special messenger. This creates doubt regarding the prosecution case. He has submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.07.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit.

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that merely technicalities of difference of dates in sending of the viscera report to the FSL, Agra cannot be made a ground for enlarging the applicant on bail. He has committed serious offence against the deceased on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.

After hearing the rival submissions, this court finds that counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A are not able to rebut the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Rajesh Kumar Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 260 of 2021, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Sikandra, District- Agra, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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.

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 19.9.2022

Rohit