In a second bail application for alleged honour killing and destruction of evidence, the single judge rejected the prayer, citing severity of punishment, complicity, and likelihood of trial completion, without commenting on the merits.
Prayer for bail rejected; trial directed to be disposed 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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35719 of 2019
Applicant :- Gaurav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
This is second bail application, after rejection of first bail application on merits vide order dated 28.11.2018, copy filed at Annexure No.1.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated for committing honour killing of his sister and making cremation of dead body without autopsy; that it is wrong to say that applicant caused honour killing of his sister for the reason that she was talking someone on telephone; that there is no eye witness of the incident and applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of hearsay evidence; that during evidence the first informant has stated to have not recorded statement of any witness; that in view of his statement as P.W.1, statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. on case diary becomes doubtful; that no case is made out against applicant; that prosecution witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile; that in the circumstances, the charges against applicant may not be proved and the prosecution case may not be believed; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 30.5.2018.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that it is clear from the material on record that it is a case of honour killing of sister by applicant upon pouring kerosene on her and putting her on fire to show a case of suicide and without doing postmortem of her body, he performed funeral surreptitiously, to make the evidence of crime disappear; that all prosecution witnesses have been examined till 30.7.2019 and there is every likelihood of final disposal of trial in near future; that if due to undue influence or
threats of applicant or otherwise any of the prosecution witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, the applicant is not entitled to take any benefit, as the correctness of the statements of witnesses as a whole is to be looked into by the trial court at the time of final disposal of trial; that applicant if released on bail, shall misuse the liberty of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The 2nd bail application of applicant Gaurav in Case Crime No.336 of 2018, under sections 302, 201/34 IPC, P.S. Tanda, District Rampur, is rejected accordingly.
However, the trial court is requested to dispose of the trial within six months in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Tamang
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a second bail application regarding an alleged murder and destruction of evidence case.
Whether a new bail application should be granted after the first one was rejected and prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Gaurav
State of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
