Allahabad High Court
Satish vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 6 January, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:796
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11269 of 2024
Applicant :- Satish
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Pandey,Praveen Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State.
This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 29.02.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 8586 of 2023. The order dated 29.02.2024 is extracted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.394 of 2021 under Section 498-A, 326 and 307 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi.
It is alleged in the First Information Report that the daughter of the informant was married as per Hindu rites seven years ago. After the marriage, the accused Satish and the co-accused, including the present applicant were demanding gold chain and buffalow and relating to the said demand of dowry, they used to beat the daughter of the complainant Vineeta. Due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, on 28.7.2021 at about 12.00noon, Satish, Phoolmati, Bablu, Naresh and Manju, present applicant have beaten the victim and set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Phoolmati has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.2.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail No.14332 of 2021 Smt. Phoolmati versus State of U.P.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that role of setting up the injured wife of the applicant on fire has been assigned on the Manju Devi, sister-in-law of the injured. The applicant is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 10.8.2021.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts. As per the statement of the injured Vineeta, upon the instigation given by the applicant, the co-accused Manju Devi poured kerosene oil upon the injured and set her on fire. Own wife of the applicant has given statement regarding his complicity and instigation given by him to set her on fire. It is further alleged that conduct of the applicant is also evident from the perusal of the injured where he brought another lady against the wish of the injured and kept her for two months in the house. It is submitted that it is a heinous offence and not a fit case for bail.
Perused the record so also the injury report. The injury report of the victim is corroborated with the statement of the injured. In the statement of the doctor the complicity of the applicant is of a main instigator on whose instance the incident took place. It is a grievous offence and not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
In view of the above, the bail application is rejected.
Office is directed to send the copy of this order to trial court.
The applicant is at liberty to revive his bail plea once the witnesses of fact has been examined.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the bail application of the co-accused Manju Devi vide order dated 28.4.2023 trial was directed to be expedited. Since then about one year has been passed still only one witness could be examined and trial is going at a very slow pace.
In view of the above, trial court is directed to examine the fact witnesses within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the second bail application on the following grounds that:-
while deciding first bail application, the trial court was directed to examine the fact witnesses within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, however, despite the lapse of more than 10 months, only one prosecution witness has been examined.
applicant's role is limited to instigation.
there is no chance of conclusion of trial in near future looking to the pace it is going on.
the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.11.2021.
Perused the record as well as the report of learned Sessions Judge dated 03.01.2025.
From perusal of the report of learned Sessions Judge dated 03.01.2025, it is clear that out of six witnesses, only PW-1 Janki Prasad has been examined. Additionally, the examination-in-chief of prosecution witness Vineeta was conducted in 2023, but no other witnesses have been examined despite the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 29.02.2024.
On due consideration to the fact that despite the orders of this Court, the trial court has failed to examined the fact witnesses in the stipulated time frame, so also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein it has been held that fundamental rights of the applicant-accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be overlooked and hence, I find it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Satish involved in Case Crime No. 394 of 2021 under Section 498-A, 326 and 307 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 6.1.2025
R.C.
