Allowed

Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023BAIL/20419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a second bail application for an applicant in a matrimonial murder/suicide case despite a prior dismissal. The court observed the applicant is in jail since 2018 and the trial remains incomplete due to the informant's absence, making early disposal unlikely.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170267

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20419 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Swatantra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

None appeared on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. However, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State is present.

¶7

Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 448 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on 18.01.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8795 of 2019 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 02.10.2018 i.e. for more than four and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

¶10

He further submits that even till date testimony of PW-1 the informant of the case could not be completed and dates are being fixed for his cross examination and in spite of coercive measures are being taken against him, he is not appearing before the trial court, therefore, there is no hope that trial of the case would be decided in early future.

¶11

He further submits that applicant is although husband of the

¶12

deceased but his wife committed suicide because even after three years of her marriage she could not conceive and post mortem report also suggests that she committed suicide and applicant have already served more than 50% of the minimum sentence provided under Section 304B IPC.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 02.10.2018 i.e. for more than four and half years and till date even testimony of PW-1 could not be completed.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Although, this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2020 but applicant in the present matter is in jail since October, 2018 i.e. for more than four and half years, therefore, it appears that he has already served more than 50% of the minimum sentence of seven years provided under Section 304B IPC.

¶16

Further, from the perusal of the order-sheet of the case, it appears that till date even testimony of PW-1 could not be completed as he is not appearing for his cross examination and coercive steps are being taken against him, therefore, I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that in near future there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

¶17

Further, applicant is although husband of the deceased but post mortem report of the deceased suggests that she died due to hanging, therefore, it appears to be a case of suicide.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact applicant in the present matter is in jail since October, 2018 and trial of the case is moving with languid pace, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant - Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 AK Pandey

¶27

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

Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo 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

Jugraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dharamveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustkim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Yadvendra Alias Mona Vs State of U.P.

Gunakar Urf Shri Krishna Vs State of U.P.