Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25715 of 2020
Applicant :- Ramesh Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Giri,Arvind Prabodh Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 4.10.2018 and the second bail application was rejected vide order dated 15.11.2019 and the trial court was required to conclude the trial within a period of six months which has already elapsed.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.569 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 326 I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person. Admittedly, there is a dying declaration in which names of the applicant and the husband Kishan Chauhan have been mentioned. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant is a senior citizen of 82 years of age and is languishing in jail since 24.7.2014, thus the period of incarceration falls out 08 years and 07 months. Learned counsel has stated that the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 304-B I.P.C. is seven years and applicant has already been incarcerated beyond that period.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein the Apex Court 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."
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that co-accused person Kishan Chauhan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27091 of 2019. He further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par with that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has further stated that all the witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution story and only evidence against the applicant is said dying declaration. There is no criminal history of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938, 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 on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
10. Let the applicant- Ramesh Chauhan 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 indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(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, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
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 on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Vikas
