Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anita vs State Of U.P. on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38391 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Anita
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Pal,Yashpal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Mishra
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.106 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the sister of the informant was married to the brother-in-law of the applicant Jitin Kumar as per Hindu rites on 21.4.2015. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have subjected her to cruelty and are stated to have abetted her to commit suicide. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have set her afire on 4.3.2020 at about 10:00 a.m.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. There is a dying declaration of the deceased person which was recorded on 4.3.2020 at the hospital which indicates that the applicant had abetted the deceased person to commit suicide and the applicant had brought a bottle of kerosene oil to the deceased person, whereby by accident she is stated to have set herself afire. Learned counsel has indicated several other contradictions in the said dying declaration. There is no criminal history of the applicant and she being a lady is entitled for bail. The applicant is in jail since 7.3.2020.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person and the deceased had nominated the applicant to be the perpetrator of the crime and has not levelled any allegation against any other accused person. The trial is at its conclusive end as five witnesses have already been examined.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record and taking into consideration the dying declaration of the deceased person, 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, 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 :- 1.3.2023
Vikas
