Allowed

Anchal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021BAIL/8044/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a fourth bail application after rejecting three previous ones. The applicant has been in custody since 2016. The court noted a significant trial delay and approved bail with strict conditions to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, conditional upon strict adherence to trial attendance and no further adjournments.

Anchal Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8044 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anchal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This fourth application for bail has been filed by applicantAnchal seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 2016 (State Vs. Anchal) arising out of Case Crime No. 795/2015 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Ist, Jaunpur.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

First bail application filed by applicant i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 41758 of 2018 (Anchal Vs. State of U.P.) came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2018. For ready reference same is reproduced herein-under:

¶9

"Heard Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This bail application has been filed by the applicant Anchal, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 795/2015 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Radhika on 19.5.2015. After the expiry of a period of seven months from the date of marriage of the applicant, the wife of the

¶12

applicant namely Radhika died in the night of 27/28.12.2015 in mysterious conditions. Without giving any information of the death of the wife to the family of the deceased or the Police, the body of the deceased was disposed of. As a consequence of the aforesaid, neither the inquest of the body of the deceased nor the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. Two days after the occurrence had taken place, an F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.12.2015 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0795/2015 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons namely, Anchal (husband), Chanchal (Jeth), Chandan (Devar), Gunjan, Goldi (Nand), Poonam (Jethani) were nominated as the accused, whereas one person was nominated as unnamed accused. Subsequent to the lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R., 6 persons out of seven accused persons nominated in the F.I.R., have been enlarged on bail. Their bail orders are on the record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C, submitted a chargesheet dated 9.7.2016 against Anchal (husband), Chanchal (Jeth), Chandan (Devar), Smt. Sobha Wati (mother-in-law) of the deceased. Thereafter, the Police had submitted a supplementary charge sheet dated 13.7.2016 against Gunjan, Goldi (Nand), Poonam (Jethani). Thus, all the named accused persons have been charge-sheeted. Upon submission of the charge sheet dated 9.7.2016 i.e. the first charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 11.7.2016. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and according to the learned counsel for the applicant, sessions trial has now come into existence. However, he is unable to disclose the details of the sessions trial, which is pending.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is innocent. He is in jail since 18.4.2016. As such, he has undergone more than two years and six months of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next submitted that the deceased had died on account of a snake bite by a poisonous snake and thus, no criminality was committed by the applicant. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the present applicant who is the husband of the deceased is

¶14

liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the occurrence has taken place just after the expiry of period of seven months from the date of marriage of the applicant. The deceased was a young girl. The failure on the part of the present applicant in not giving information of the death of the deceased to his in-laws, creates a serious doubt regarding the bonafide of the present applicant. Placing reliance, upon section 39 Cr.P.C., it is thus urged that since the death of the deceased had occurred within a period of seven years from the date of the marriage, it was obligatory on the present applicant to inform the Police Station concerned. The disposal of the dead body without intimation to the Police Station Concerned also creates a serious doubt regarding the bonafide of the applicant. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. It is also contended that since the trial has already been commenced, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the Court to expedite the trial itself.

¶16

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicants stands rejected.

¶17

However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶18

Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight."

¶19

Thereafter, applicant filed second bail application which was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44920 of 2019 (Anchal Vs. State of U.P.). Same came to be rejected vide

¶20

order dated 11.02.2020. For ready reference order dated 11.02.2020 is reproduced herein-under:

¶21

" Heard Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. representing opposite party No. 1.

¶22

This second application for bail has been filed by applicant Anchal seeking his enlargement on bail during pendency of S.T. No.240 of 2018 (State Vs. Anchal), arising out of case crime no. 795 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Khetasarai, District-Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Jaunpur.

¶23

First bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated 29.11.2018.

¶24

Learned counsel for applicant submits that this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant observed that Trial Court shall make endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months. Unfortunately, despite the fact that a period of more than 12 months have rolled bye, trial has not yet concluded. He next submits that applicant is in jail since 18.4.2016, as such he has undergone 3 years and 9 months of incarceration. Consequently, applicant is liable to enlarged on bail.

¶25

Submission urged by learned counsel for applicant on the grounds that trial has not concluded, inspite of direction of this Court and that applicant is in jail since 18.4.2016 are not sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶26

In view of the facts noted above, no good ground has been made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶27

Second bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

¶28

Third bail application filed by applicant i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28504 of 2020 (Anchal Vs. State of U.P.) came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.12.2020. For ready reference order dated 08.12.2020 is reproduced herein-under:

¶29

" After some argument learned counsel for applicant contends that he

¶30

be permitted to withdraw the present bail application.

¶31

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same.

¶32

Prayer made is allowed.

¶33

Application is dismissed as withdrawn."

¶34

Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for applicant submits that this is fourth bail application filed by applicant. Applicant is in custody since 18.04.2016. As such, applicant has undergone more than 5 years and 8 months of incarceration. He has then invited attention of Court to Case Diary (photocopy of which is on record at page 46 of paper book) and on the basis thereof, he submits that place of burning of deceased was identified by first informant himself. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that offence under Section 201 I.P.C. is not made out against applicant. It is further contended that Sessions Trial No.240 of 2016 (State Vs. Anchal) was registered on 30.07.2016. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than five years has rolled by from 30.07.2016, only one prosecution witness, i.e., P.W.1 has been examined till date. It is lastly contended that applicant has undergone half of minimum sentence provided for an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, it is thus urged that applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶35

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this bail application. Learned A.G.A. contends that applicant is husband of the deceased. Deceased has died just after 7 months of her marriage. As such, the death of deceased is unnatural. Applicant has failed to dislodge his burden under Section 106 as well as 113B of Indian Evidence Act. As no new and good ground has been made out in the fourth bail application, consequently, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A.

¶37

for State and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that applicant was taken into custody on 18.04.2016. As such, applicant has undergone more than five years and eight months of incarceration, i.e., more than half of the minimum sentence. It is also an undisputed fact that place of burning of deceased was identified by Investigating Officer on the pointing out of first informant. Aforesaid is clearly established from the relevant page of case diary, photocopy of which is on record at page 46 of paper book. However, a period of more than five years has rolled by since the commencement of trial, i.e, 30.07.2016 but only one prosecution witness, i.e., P.W.1 has been examined till date. Thus, application has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is allowed.

¶38

Let the applicant- Anchal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶39

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶40

(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 I.P.C..

¶41

(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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶42

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶43

(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶44

10 However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶45

Order Date :- 12.11.2021 YK

Anchal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anchal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Prasad and Another Vs Board of Revenue and 7 Ors.

Ramesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Geeta Devi Vs District Magistrate and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Sarvjeet Singh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vishwajeet Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others