Allahabad High Court
Saurabh vs State Of U.P. on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37040 of 2020
Applicant :- Saurabh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhaiya Ram Maurya
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 346 of 2019, under Section 304-B, 498-A, 323 of IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kishni, District Mainpuri with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case being husband of the deceased Renu. It is further submitted that marriage of the Renu (deceased) was performed with the applicant on 15.12.2018 and she died on 10.09.2019. It is further submitted that neither the applicant has ever demanded any additional dowry from her wife nor tortured her. It is further submitted that statements of PW1/informant Jugendra Singh and PW2 Shivam (brother of the deceased) were recorded before the trial court but they had not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2019 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 has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by contending that applicant is husband and Renu (deceased) died within one year of her marriage at the house of the applicant.
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, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that during trial PW1/informant Jugendra Singh and PW2 Shivam (brother of the deceased) had not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile, 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 Saurabh 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 :- 21.4.2023
AKT
