Allahabad High Court
Rupesh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 17 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41091
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10393 of 2024
Applicant :- Rupesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia,Anil Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 01.01.2021 in S.T. No.191 of 2021, Case Crime No.375 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station ? Neemgaon, District ? Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant, who is husband of the victim (since deceased), has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein allegations have been levelled of demanding dowry, torturing etc. against the entire family but the charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and his parents. His parents have already been granted bail. Other family members have also been granted bail. Cause of death is throttling. As per statement of the complainant recorded before the learned Trial Court, he has stated that at the time of marriage, the accused persons had not demanded any dowry from him.
4. Sri Sharma has further submitted that out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, four are relevant/fact witnesses and two more are substantial fact witnesses. As per information of learned counsel for the applicant, all the aforesaid six prosecution witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Court, therefore, if the present applicant, who is in jail for about four years and seven months, is released on bail, there will be no apprehension of tampering the evidence or influencing any relevant/ fact witnesses. This has been view of the Apex Court that if the relevant fact witnesses have been examined and the period of incarceration is long, the accused person may be enlarged on bail. Sri Sharma has also submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re;Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered for bail. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, six fact/ material witnesses have been examined, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.
6. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the bail application but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that six fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra); the period of incarceration of the present applicant i.e. about four years and seven months; larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; other co-accused persons have been granted bail and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant- Rupesh be released on bail in the aforesaid S.T./case crime number 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:-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(iii) 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./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 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/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
10. Before parting with, learned Trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C./ 346 B.N.S.S. and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
Order Date :- 17.7.2025
RBS/-
