Rinku @ Umesh Dwivedi vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1428 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37679 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Rinku @ Umesh Dwivedi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh,Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Nath Rai,Chandra Shekhar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Aditya Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0113 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malwan, District Fatehpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 13.08.2019. No new ground is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant except the fact that the applicant has been incarcerated in jail since about 5 years and 10 months. The minimum punishment for the said offence is 7 years. In light of Article 21 of the Constitution, the applicant is entitled for bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has also stated that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, whereby the delinquent was enlarged on bail by the court concerned. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2017.

6. Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties going through the evidence on record and taking into account the fact that no new ground except the period of incarceration and also taking into account the saying of Late Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo of Supreme Court of America who has stated that not only the liberty of the accused is to be seen but all the accusor also. The judgment of Data Ram (supra) does not apply to this case. I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. However, it is directed that the court below may proceed with the trial and reach at the logical conclusion expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

10. 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 :- 13.1.2023

Anurag