Allahabad High Court
Ajay Ray vs State Of U.P. on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35711 of 2020
Applicant :- Ajay Ray
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 81 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Madhotanda, District- Pilibhit, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that deceased Jharna Ray is the wife of the applicant and they performed their marriage with each other on 31.10.2012 which was the second marriage of the applicant as well as of the victim. The family member of the deceased Jharna Ray and applicant were not happy with the marriage. It is further submitted that the applicant and deceased Jharna Ray both decided to commit suicide and both of them hang themselves but the applicant survived. It is next submitted that from the place of occurrence two sarees were recovered one with which the deceased committed suicide and the another with which the applicant tried to hang his life. It is further submitted in the post-mortem report no injury was found except the ligature mark on the person of the deceased. It is next submitted that after the incident the applicant was admitted to Prayas Hospital and documents with regard to his treatment are filed an annexure no. 2 of the bail application. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 22.05.2019 having no criminal history 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 opposed the prayer for bail application.
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 Ajay Ray in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy 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 :- 18.4.2023/Gaurav
