Sujeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 895 of 2020

Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Gupta,Anand Kumar Pandey,Gyan Prakash Verma,Kamini Pandey (Dubey) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation against the applicant causing dowry death of his wife by way of burning.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that it is not a case of bride burning but a case of accident. The chhappar accidentally caused fire and the entire house was burnt including the deceased. The deceased was taken to the hospital and she died. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 14.10.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-

¶10

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the

¶11

accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sujeet Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 630 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Saini, District- Kaushambi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) 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 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing

¶19

of charge and (iii) 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.

¶20

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.9.2022 Rohit

¶24

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.21 13:37:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sujeet Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Vs State of U.P.

Satya Narain Vs State of U.P.

Akash Singh Yadav @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Lalvani @ Karan Vs State of U.P.

Zahid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Babli Vs State of U.P.