Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Kannaujiya Alias ... vs State Of U.P. on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17127 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Kannaujiya Alias Pardeshi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh,Pramod Kumar Dubey,Raj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. List has been revised.
3. Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order of this Court dated 10.01.2018.
5. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.403 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC & 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
6. As per prosecution story, the daughter of the informant was not at good terms with the applicant, who happens to be her husband, as such she had started living with her sister Surekha in the house of one Moti Chaudhary. On 05.07.2016 at about 11:00 PM, the applicant is stated to have come to the said rented house of the daughter of the informant and is stated to have entered into an altercation with her thereby he had caused her death by firing at her.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is admitted story of the prosecution that the victim was living separately to the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that out of the said wedlock, a baby daughter was born and she has been taken care of by the family members of the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the daughter, who is now about eight years, has been rendered to lead a life of destitution and vagrancy. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 do not support the prosecution story to the extent that during their cross-examination, they have indicated several contradictions in their statements. PW-1 has stated that she has not seen the occurrence and PW-2, who happens to be the sister of the deceased person in whose house deceased used to live and she has been put to death, has also stated that she has not seen the applicant firing at the deceased person. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 07.07.2016 whereby more than six and half years have passed since he has been incarcerated.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the examination-in-chief of PW-1 and PW-2 was taken up on 25.04.2017 and they have categorically indicated towards the applicant having caused the death of his wife in her rented home, whereby she was living with PW-2. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that on the application moved on behalf of the applicant, the cross-examination was adjourned and the same was taken up of PW-1 on 25.05.2017 whereby she has indicated certain contradictions in her statement. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the cross-examination of PW-2 was undertaken on 14.07.2017 and 15.07.2017 respectively. The said delay in cross-examining the witness can be attributed to the said contradiction in the statements, if any. The witnesses giving contradictory statements is but natural in case of rustic witnesses, as such the statement of PW-2 is categorically covered by Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned A.G.A. has also stated that the trial is at its conclusive end as already seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, although order-sheet has not been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed today.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was the sole accused named in the FIR and there is evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 on record which corroborated the prosecution story and also the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
11. 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.
12. 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 :- 27.3.2023
Ravi Kant
