Allahabad High Court
Rajneesh Kumar Gaud vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100262
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44855 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajneesh Kumar Gaud
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Vikram Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,Jayant Srivastava
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
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. 155 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case being the husband of the deceased Shivangi. According to the prosecution case, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased Shivangi on 07.06.2021. It is further submitted that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. As per postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging. It is further submitted that before the trial court statements of P.W.1-Shambhu Prasad Gupta (who is the informant and father of the deceased-Shivangi), P.W.2-Priyanka Jaiswal (who is the mother of the deceased) and P.W.3-Raj Kumar Jaiswal (who is the Mausa of the deceased) were recorded on 14.06.2022, 01.09.2022 and 03.09.2022 respectively but they have not supported the prosecution and turned hostile. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 13.07.2021 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 but could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
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."
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, Rajneesh Kumar Gaud, 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 :- 9.5.2023
Prajapati
