Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/10/2021 on 22 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Bail Application No. 01 of 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 of 2021
22 June, 2021
Between:
Rajesh Taneja ...... Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand ...... Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Imran Ali
Khan, learned counsel
Counsel for the State : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Justice Sri Alok Kumar Verma)
This application is filed on behalf of the appellant
Rajesh Taneja for seeking bail in this appeal.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment
dated 18.12.2020 / 21.12.2020, passed by the learned I Addl.
Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Sessions Trial
No. 09 of 2016, "State Vs Rajesh Taneja and two others",
whereby, the appellant has been convicted in the offence
punishable under Section 304B of IPC and has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years; he
2
has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
IPC; and, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the sentences are directed to
run concurrently.
3. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Imran Ali Khan, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State through Video Conferencing.
4. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, the learned Senior Advocate,
submitted that the conviction is against the weight of evidence
on record; there are no evidence on the record to the effect
that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to any
cruelty; the appellant has never demanded any dowry; the
evidence of the father of the deceased (PW1) is hearsay
evidence; there are major contradictions in the statements of
the prosecution witnesses and the appellant is in custody since
18.12.2020.
5. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned counsel
for the State, opposed the bail application. He submitted that
during the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, and
all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.
3
During the trial, evidence are produced that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the appellant,
husband. According to the post-mortem examination report,
Organo Phosphorus insecticide was found in the body of the
deceased.
6. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Amarmani
Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that it is well settled that the matters to be considered in an
application for bail, are (i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence, (ii) nature and gravity of charge, (iii) severity of
the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv) danger of the
accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, (v)
character, behavior, means, position and standing of the
accused, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated, (vii)
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.
7. In determining whether to grant bail, both the
seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment
should be taken into consideration. While dealing with an
application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order,
reasons for prima facie considering why bail is being granted
particularly where an accused is charged of having committed
a serious offence. Any order dehors reasons suffers from non
application of mind as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
4
Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others,
(2002)3 SCC 598.
8. A ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi and
another, 2018(1) CCSC 117 is that in serious crimes, the
mere fact that the accused is in custody for more than one
year, may not be a relevant consideration to release the
accused on bail.
9. Undoubtedly, the appellant got married to the
deceased on 01.10.2006. It is further not a matter of dispute
that on 17.06.2013, i.e. within seven years of the marriage,
the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. During trial,
evidence are produced that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty soon before her death for demand of dowry by the
appellant. At this stage, the presumption of the provision of
Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act attracts against the
appellant. It would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in
depth at this stage. At this stage, detailed appreciation of
evidence shall affect the merit of the case. If a strong prima
facie ground is disclosed for substantial doubt about the
conviction, it may be a ground to grant the bail. Such a
ground does not appear in the present case. Therefore, the
bail application has no merit. The bail application is rejected.
5
10. It is clarified that the observations made regarding
the bail application is limited to the decision of this bail
application, as to whether the bail application should be
allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the
merit of this appeal.
_______________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
_________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 22 June, 2021
Negi
