Allahabad High Court
Kunwarpal vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115869
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44267 of 2020
Applicant :- Kunwarpal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gupta,Abhilasha Singh,Ajay Kumar Tiwari,Alok Ranjan Tripathi,Arun Kr. Soni,Ashutosh Upadhyay,Ashutosh Yadav,Gaurav Srivastava,Girish Kumar Yadav,Rohit Kumar Pandey,Sangam Lal Kesharwani,Shyam Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Singh,Satya Narayan Yadav
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today 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. 439 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal 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 husband of the deceased Kiran. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased Kiran in the month of May, 2019. The deceased had committed suicide by hanging with the garter of the roof. It is further submitted that applicant never made demand of dowry from his wife. Initially three persons were named in the first information report but the charge-sheet was filed only against the applicant. It is further submitted that so far as injuries mentioned in the postmortem are concerned, nature of injuries suggest that they may occur in putting down the body and the incised wounds were not on vital parts of the body. It is further submitted that during trial P.W.1-Prem Pal (first informant), P.W.2-Dhanwanti (mother of the deceased) and P.W.3-Alvel Singh (brother of the deceased) have been recorded, they did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 25.05.2020 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 and submitted that the deceased died within one year of her marriage in the house of the applicant under suspicious circumstances.
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, Kunwarpal, 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 :- 24.5.2023
Prajapati
