Allahabad High Court
Pradeep vs State Of U.P. on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37898 of 2021
Applicant :- Pradeep
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Solanki,Raj Kishore Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is the first bail application filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 380 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Loni, District- Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case being husband of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased Chandani was solemnized with the applicant in the year 2014 thereafter no complaint of making demand of dowry or treating her with cruelty is made during this period before the incident and she was died on 09.06.2020. It is further submitted that all the allegations made in the first information report are false and baseless and applicant never made any demand of dowry or tortured physically to deceased Chandani before her death. It is also submitted that applicant himself informed about the death of deceased Chandani of her parents and as per post mortem report the cause of death was ascertained asphyxia and ante mortem hanging. It is submitted that the deceased was having suspicion over the character of the applicant that applicant has illicit relation with another girl namely Soni so she was always frustrated for that reasonI. It is submitted that It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.06.2021 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the deceased died seven years of her marriage under suspicious circumstances in the house of the applicant. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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 Pradeep in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Gaurav
