Allowed

Pradum Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2023BAIL/11193/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the second bail application of Pradum Singh charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Relying on Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, the court granted bail noting the applicant's long detention and the non-examination of any prosecution witness.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation and non-interference with witnesses.

Pradum Singh Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112366

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11193 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradum Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Kushwaha,Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Rafiqa Anees Khan, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Pradum Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 480 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKanth, District-Shahjahanpur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51526 of 2021.

¶9

As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant / informant-Vipin Kumar Singh lodged an F.I.R. on 1.8.2021 with regard to an incident which took place on 29.7.2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against six accused persons namely, Pradum Singh, Suresh Singh, Haldar, Pappu, Rakesh and grand mother-in-law (dadiya saas) alleging interalia that the marriage of his daughter (now deceased) was solemnized four years back with the applicant but she was harassed and tortured by the accused persons on account of nonfulfillment of additional demand of dowry of Rs. 1 lac. F.I.R. further alleges that when the complainant expressed his inability to give Rs. 1 lac, then the applicant purchased a tractor taking a loan on the Aadhar Card of the complainant. On raising objection by the complainant, they started

¶10

torturing his daughter. On 29.07.2004 at about 4:00 pm, his daughter told him that the accused persons called an oculist and making a plan to kill her on which she was again beaten by the accused persons. Later on, complainant was informed that his daughter is dead.

¶11

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that in this case, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 18.08.2021 having no criminal history to his credit. Charge has been framed against the applicant on 13.06.2022 but till date, not a single prosecution witness has been examined before the trial Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgement in the matter of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 731 further argued that the speedy trial is a legal right of the accused. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶12

On putting query, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant on merit but fairly conceded that prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial Court.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, by the order of this Court dated 10.05.2023, a report about present status of trial of the applicant was called for from the concerned Presiding OfÏcer, who in turn, submitted its report dated 19.05.2023, which is on record. On perusal of report dated 19.05.2023, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that till date not a single prosecution witness has been produced by the prosecution before the trial Court.

¶14

Regarding long incarceration of under trial prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra ) has held as follows :-

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the detention period of the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Pradum Singh , 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:-

¶18

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶19

(ii) That 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶21

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before

¶22

the release of the applicant on bail.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2023 Saurabh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradum Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradum 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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Sunit Kamal Vs State of U.P.

Pashupati Nath Tiwari @ Jugnu Vs State of U.P.

Vilal Vs State of U.P.