Allahabad High Court
Amit @ Pavva 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. - 3379 of 2020
Applicant :- Amit @ Pavva
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav,Pradip Narain Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Third supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Pradip Narain Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.129 of 2015, under Sections 302, 354, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Rohata, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have come to the house of the informant in an inebriated state and is stated to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the wife of the informant and set her afire.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the prosecution witnesses examined in court have not supported the prosecution story. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and there is no likelihood of its early conclusion. Learned counsel has further placed much reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 LawSuit(SC) 725. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.8.2015.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a dying declaration of the deceased recorded under the provisions of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act on 3.8.2015 which categorically indicates that it was the applicant who had committed the said crime. There is doctor's certificate to the said dying declaration also.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the factum of dying declaration of the deceased, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, 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.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Vikas
