Allahabad High Court
Sushil Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107385
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20342 of 2023
Applicant :- Sushil Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Dixit,Jitendra Kumar,Keshav Hari Dixit
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. 46 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40538 of 2022.
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 the deceased. It is further submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the statements of PW1/informant Dharmveer (brother of the deceased) and PW2 Pushpendra (brother of the deceased) were recorded before the trial court and they did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 01.05.2022 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 and the fact that PW1/informant and PW2 (brothers of the deceased ) had not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile during their deposition before the trial court, 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 Sushil Kumar 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 :- 17.5.2023
AKT
