Allowed

Phoolendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 May 2022BAIL/12308/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of Phoolendra Singh, challenging sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Relying on the Supreme Court direction in Saudan Singh that bail must be granted if an accused serves more than ten years, the court released the applicant subject to strict conditions, expressly reserving merit of the case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Phoolendra Singh released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties under strict conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses and appearing in court for trial proceeding

Phoolendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12308 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Phoolendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has filed compliance affidavit today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Garg, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant Phoolendra Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2011 (Sessions Trial No. 883 of 2012) for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Koraon, District Prayagraj. First bail application of the applicant was rejected in the absence of the applicant by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2018.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 4.12.2011 has been lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. by father of the deceased Santara Devi against the applicant and five other named persons stating therein that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the applicant three years prior to the incident and he spent money more than his capacity in the marriage. After marriage the applicant and other co-accused persons demanded one motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry. On the persuasion of respective persons of the society, first informant went to the matrimonial house of his daughter along with his daughter. After that the applicant and other co-accused persons started to harass his daughter and made cruelty with her. His daughter informed him through phone about the cruelty due to demand of additional dowry. On 19/20.9.2011 in the night brother of Jagganath Singh informed him through call that the applicant and other co-accused persons assaulted his daughter due to which she died. Next day at about 7.00 a.m. he reached the matrimonial house of his daughter and inquired about the incident. They did not give any satisfactory reply to him. He

¶9

informed to the concerned Circle Officer through phone. On this information inquest proceedings and postmortem have been conducted, but the accused persons have not been arrested.

¶10

In this case charge sheet has been filed on 24.6.2012 and the cognizance was taken on 24.9.2012. An application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has been filed for summoning co-accused Jagganath Singh and Karan Singh, which was dismissed by trial court vide order dated 25.11.2013.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. First bail application has been rejected without considering the facts of the present case in the absence of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.12.2011. It is further submitted that the prosecution has examined PW-6 on 20.11.2017 and process has been issued for examination of PW-7 and PW-8. It is next contended that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 304-B, IPC is punishable with the sentence for a term which may not be less than seven years, but which extend to imprisonment for life. It is further submitted that more than 11 years have passed but the trial is not concluded over yet.

¶12

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Donthula Ravindranath @ Ravinder Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 3 SCC 196 (para 11 to 14) . It is contended that in the aforesaid matter in similar circumstances the wife of the appellant-Donthula Ravindranath died due to strangulation within 7 years of her marriage with the appellant. The deceased was harassed by the appellant for additional dowry. They were living in same house and the death was caused by hanging/strangulation. The appellant in the said case argued that there is no iota of evidence to establish that the appellant caused death of his wife. Even if offence under Section 498-A is proved, in absence of any clinching evidence that appellant caused death, it would not be safe to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302. The Apex Court opined that the appellant must be found guilty for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, which is punishable with the sentence for a term which may not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. The Apex Court altered the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC to an

¶14

offence under Section 304-B IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, as the appellant was in jail for almost a decade. Therefore, in view of the order dated 25th February, 2022 of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 308/2022 (Saudan Singh vs. State of UP) arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4633 of 2021 , the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, pending the trial. The order of the Apex Court dated 25th February, 2022 passed in Saudan Singh's case (supra), has been placed.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail, but he could not dispute the incarceration of the applicant.

¶16

The Supreme Court in case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 O SCC 220 would reveal that one of the directions issued by the Apex Court, which is relevant to this case, is as follows:-

¶17

"The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him.

¶18

We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be troubled with such matters."

¶19

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) and Brijesh Kumar @ Ramu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2022, order dated 1.4.2022 , but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let applicant, Phoolendra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶26

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶28

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶29

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶30

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶31

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶32

Order Date :- 5.5.2022 T. Sinha

¶33

Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.05.09 15:01:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Phoolendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoolendra Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Niwas and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tularam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Garg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Harendra Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.