Criminal Master Bail Application rejected for applicant in murder case. Court noted preliminary facts but held bail not appropriate at this stage. Trial directed to conclude within six months.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24195 of 2020
Applicant :- Ajay Alias Pintu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla,Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This application has been entertained without an affidavit on account of the extraordinary contingency created by the Covid-19 pandemic where the travel is restricted. This Court notices the fact that there is a declaration by the applicant that he will file an affidavit. This order is being passed, therefore, subject to a certain conditions in this regard.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Ajay Alias Pintu Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 346 of 2019, under Section 147, 302, 201, IPC, Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.
Heard Sri Shivram Dube, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sanjay Sharma learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that it is a case that rests on circumstantial evidence. It is argued that no one has seen the occurrence. The FIR was lodged on the basis of suspicion. The applicant is a brother-in-law (Dewar) of the deceased and lives apart from his father's family where the deceased lived along
with her husband. It is argued that the recovery assigned to him at his pointing of the weapon of offence, a member of the cot, employed to bludgeon the deceased is planted. It is also argued that it is for the other members of the family to explain how the dead body of the deceased in a decomposed state was recovered from the granary located in their house. It is also pointed out that co-accused have been granted bail by the Court of Sessions and the applicant is, therefore, entitled to bail on the foot of parity. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that it is heinous crime, where the wife of the applicant's brother died an unnatural death with severe injuries to her head involving fracture of the skull and her dead body was found within the house in the granary, but no FIR was lodged by any member of her husband's family regarding her unnatural death until the father of the deceased came forward and lodged the FIR. The very circumstance of the deceased's body being found in the granary after suffering an unnatural death, shows crime on the hands of all the members of the deceased husband's family, including the applicant, and an attempt to destroy and conceal evidence. The circumstances under which the deceased died would alone be in the knowledge of the applicant and other members of the deceased husband's family, the burden whereof would lie upon them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, at the pointing of the applicant, recovery of the weapon of offence has been shown, which distinguishes his case from others.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found hidden away in the granary of her husband's home, the fact that no FIR was lodged by the deceased's husband or his family, of whom the applicant is one, the fact that the recovery of weapon of offence has been shown at the applicant's pointing, the fact that special knowledge prima facie has to be attributed to each member of the deceased husband's family under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, that fact that the circumstances of not reporting the homicidal death goes entirely unexplained, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that trial pending before the concerned court be concluded expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures for ensuring their presence.
Let this order be communicated to the Trial Court
concerned through the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur by the Joint Registrar (Compliance).
Order Date :- 28.9.2020
NSC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a heinous murder case resting on circumstantial evidence with hidden recovery.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously if detention continues.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabReferred¶13
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Ajay Alias Pintu Singh
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
