Allahabad High Court
Indra Bahadur vs State Of U.P. on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7886 of 2020
Applicant :- Indra Bahadur
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Kushwaha,Anil Kumar Savita,Hari Nath Chaubey,R.S. Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Savita, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.4.2019.
5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.533 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that on the date of previous rejection order no prosecution witnesses were examined and after that two prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution story. The applicant is entitled for bail on this ground. Learned counsel has further stated that applicant is the husband of the deceased person and had rushed to save her and he himself got burnt in it which is supported by the medical report of the District Hospital Kanpur Dehat annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has stated that PW-1 has resiled from his statement earlier recorded on 6.8.2019 as during his cross-examination he has stated that his daughter had told him before her death that she caught fire accidentally during cooking. Learned counsel has stated that there is difference of three days only between the said statements of the informant (PW-1). Learned counsel has stated that PW-2 has completely resiled from her statement and has not supported the prosecution story. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present matter. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is languishing in jail since 20.12.2018. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the witnesses have turned hostile.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record as also the fact that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, 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.
10. Let the applicant- Indra Bahadur involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v). 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. 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.
12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 8.2.2023
Vikas
