Allahabad High Court
Sunil Sahni vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161146
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19658 of 2024
Applicant :- Sunil Sahni
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Mishra,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Karunesh Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Vibhor Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court on merit vide order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42695 of 2022 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 02.11.2021 i.e. for last almost three years and till date out of 22 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only two witnesses could be examined, therefore, it appears that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.
4. He further submits, however, applicant is husband of the deceased but according to autopsy report deceased died due to hanging and however her hyoid bone was found fractured but even in cases of suicide hyoid bone can be found fractured.
5. He further submits that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on the basis of prolonged incarceration an accused can be released on bail. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755.
6. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history.
7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court on merit with detailed order after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased but could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 02.11.2021 i.e. for last almost three years and till date only two witnesses could be examined out of 22 witnesses of the charge-sheet.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. However, it reflects that applicant is husband of deceased and this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court on merit but it reflects that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 02.11.2021 i.e. for last almost three years and till date only two witnesses could be examined out of 22 witnesses of the charge-sheet, therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated and there is no hope of early disposal of the trial, cannot be ruled out.
10. Further, however, autopsy report of the deceased suggests that her hyoid bone was found fractured but even according to the autopsy surgeon deceased died due to hanging and considering the fact that even in cases of suicide hyoid bone can be found fractured, at at this stage it cannot be said that it is a case of homicidal death.
11. Further, from the record it reflects that at the time of alleged incident applicant was not present in his house and he was at Bangalore, State of Karnataka.
12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant - Sunil Sahni be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
17. 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 :- 1.10.2024
AK Pandey
