Allahabad High Court
Ram Avtar Chauhan @ Pintoo vs State Of U.P. on 11 November, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176468
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54511 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Avtar Chauhan @ Pintoo
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey,Shashi Prakash Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.492 of 2023 (State vs. Ram Avtar @ Pintoo), arising out of Case Crime No.113 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station- Paniyara, District- Maharajganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu Rites in the year 2012. The applicant used to subject her to cruelty on one pretext or the other. The applicant is stated to have committed her murder in the night of 31.3.2023.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
7. The Trial is moving at a snail's pace as to date only two witnesses of fact have been examined.
8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.4.2023 and is ready to cooperate with trial. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:
9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the deceased was murdered within the precincts of house of the applicant. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling, as such, it is not a suicidal case rather it is a clear cut homicidal case.
10. The onus is on the applicant to explain the cause and modus of death of the deceased person. The applicant has also failed to lodge report at any place whatsoever, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment and taking into consideration that the deceased expired within the four walls of the house of the applicant and the autopsy report categorically mentions the cause of death to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling, without commenting any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
