Allahabad High Court
Rajesh vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33712 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Kumar Singh,Amit Daga
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
3rd supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 266 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Todi Fatehpur, District Jhansi, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is husband of deceased Arti. The marriage of Arti with applicant was solemnized on 09.12.2020. The deceased was not happy with the marriage because she was having love affairs with some other person and she committed suicide on 21.12.2020. It is further submitted that the applicant never made any demand of dowry with his wife and never committed any cruelty with her. In the post-mortem report, except ligature mark, no other injury was found on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that PW-1 Ghanshaym, informant, who happens to be grandfather of the deceased, PW-2 Kailash, who happens to be the father of the deceased, PW-3 Devanti, who happens to be mother of the deceased, PW-4, Neeraj Kumar, who happens to be brother of the deceased and PW-5 Dhanaram, who happens to be uncle of the deceased, have been examined by the prosecution during trial and none of the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution version and turned hostile. It is also submitted that PW-1 Ghanshyam also deposed that prior to 5-6 months of the marriage, his grand daughter, Arti (deceased), left the house with another person of village Bhadra and she was brought back to her house after three days. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant which can lead to his conviction. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2020, having no criminal history and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
All the witnesses recorded so far, have not corroborated the prosecution version. It is submitted that only formal witnesses are yet to be examined and applicant is in jail since 23.12.2020
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let applicant, Rajesh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Suraj
