Allahabad High Court
Kalika Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195922
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35308 of 2021
Applicant :- Kalika Gupta And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiva Kant Srivastava,Kamal Kumar Singh,Manju Verma,Narendra Kumar Yadav,Pradeep Chauhan,R.L. Varma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Raghuraj Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Kalika Gupta and Jitendra Gupta, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 137 of 2019, under Sections 306, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh.
4. The first bail application of the applicants was rejected by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J. (as he was then) vide order dated 13.07.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11113 of 2020 (Kalika Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P.).
5. There has been repeated request of learned counsel for the applicants for adjourning the matter today, the same is turned down on the ground that vide order dated 23.08.2023 the matter was directed to be listed today peremptorily by this Court. Since the matter is listed peremptorily today the request for pass over is turned down.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed a single argument in the matter that the trial of the applicants was expedited vide order dated 13.07.2020 passed in the first bail application in which the trial court was directed to decide the same within six months from the date of production of a copy of the said order and the said order was filed before the trial court with an application dated 23.09.2020. It is argued that despite the filing of the said order before the trial court, the trial has not yet concluded. Further, learned counsel has placed before the Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency : (2022) 1 SCC 695 and has argued while placing paragraph 13 of the same that the Apex Court has held that personal liberty of a person cannot be denied and without ensuring speedy trial. It is argued that the incarceration of the applicants is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that as such the applicants are in jail since 03.08.2019 and they may be released on bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicants was rejected on merits by a detailed order by another Bench of this Court. It is argued that the trial in the present matter is going on in which two prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that since the trial in the matter is going on it cannot be said that the applicants are in jail without any progress in trial and as such their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated. It is argued that no new and fresh ground argued by learned counsel for the applicant in the present second bail application.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicants was rejected by another Bench of this Court on merits by a detailed order on 13.07.2020. The said order is extracted hereinbelow:-
"Heard Sri Gyan Prakash Verma learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri D.P.S. Chawla, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.137 of 2019 under sections 306 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Raunapar, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by SHO, an unknown dead body lying by the side of the river was found, which was later on identified as that of the deceased, who is daughter of the accused-applicants.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are absolutely innocent. He has drawn attention to the suicide note of the deceased which is annexed at page-23 of the paper book in which she has given reason why she has committed suicide as some wrong allegation of illicit relation was levelled between elder son of Gyanwati Devi with her which was false and because of which she has committed suicide. He has also drawn attention to the post-mortem report in which cause of death has been mentioned to be shock and superficial to deep burning injury. The applicants are not involved in any other criminal case. They are languishing in jail since 03.08.2019. In case the applicants are released on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicants Kalika Gupta and Jitendra Gupta.
Accordingly, the bail application of Kalika Gupta and Jitendra Gupta is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and verified by the learned counsel for the applicant."
9. The only ground as argued is of delay in trial, the trial as per the learned counsel for the applicants is going on in which two witnesses have been examined. The trial court is reminded of the order passed in the first bail application expediting the trial which shall look into the same and ensure that the same is complied with in its true spirit. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
10. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
