Allahabad High Court
Bunty Alias Dinesh vs State Of U.P. on 12 November, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177316
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13206 of 2024
Applicant :- Bunty Alias Dinesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Babu Lal Ram,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.670 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant suspected that the deceased, who happens to be the husband of the informant, had illicit relationship with his wife, as such he is stated to have come to the house of the informant in the night of 15.12.2023 at about 11:30 p.m. and slapped the informant and took the husband to the roof, whereby he assaulted him with knife causing grievous injuries to him.
6. The deceased was rushed to the hospital by the informant, where he was declared brought dead. The FIR was instituted the next morning at 06:57 a.m.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The statement of PW-1 has been recorded during trial and she has stated that it was pitch dark at the time of offence and there was no source of light. She has also stated that there was no suspicion in the mind of the applicant regarding the illicit relationship of the deceased with his wife. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.12.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the delay, if any, has been properly explained as she had rushed her husband to the hospital and it was her paramount duty to somehow save the life of her husband. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that PW-1 has deposed against the applicant and has categorically reiterated the allegations made in the FIR.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the sole accused person named in the FIR, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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.
12. 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 :- 12.11.2024
Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
