Allahabad High Court
Kartar vs State Of U.P. on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103378
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19080 of 2023
Applicant :- Kartar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Gaurav Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 53 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B of IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Shamshabad, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.012023 by this Court.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case being husband of deceased Preeti. The marriage of Preeti (deceased) was solemnized with the applicant on 17.07.2021 and she committed suicide on 24.02.2022. It is further submitted that as per the post-mortem report the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. It is further submitted that during trial statements of the PW1 Ramjeet (father of the deceased) and PW2 Nahar (uncle of the deceased) were recorded, they have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is further submitted that fact witnesses PW3 Ram Dutt and PW4 Chob Singh had also been examined before the trial court and they also not corroborated the prosecution version and turned hostile. However, the statements of PW3 and PW4 has not been brought on record. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since11.04.2022 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he 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 entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that all the fact witnesses had already been examined before the trial court and they had not supported the prosecution version, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Kartar in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount 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 :- 12.5.2023
AKT
