Allahabad High Court
Shivam Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157974
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20394 of 2023
Applicant :- Shivam Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Niklank Kumar Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant as the first application for bail has been rejected vide order dated 10.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23532 of 2022.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.42 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Jahanganj, District - Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad) with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. It is submitted that after rejection of the first bail application the statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded, wherein P.W.-1, Himanshu Gupta, informant of the matter, did not corroborate the prosecution version and was declared hostile. P.W.-2, Nirmla Gupta, mother of deceased and P.W.-3, Ravendra Kumar Gupta, father of the deceased, have also not corroborated the version of the prosecution and were declared hostile. It is further submitted that the witnesses of fact have also not corroborated the version of prosecution. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2021 having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
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 submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant, Shivam Gupta, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties 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 :- 7.8.2023
Atul
