Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117541

Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23709 of 2022

Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1- Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State

¶7

2- By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 638 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Bareilly, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

3- First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48755 of 2020.

¶9

4- As per the prosecution case in brief, informant who is father of deceased lodged an F.I.R. on 07.12.2017 regarding an incident which took place on 06.12.2017 against the applicant-Ranjeet (husband of deceased), Murarilal (father-in-law of deceased), Chhoti (mother-in-law of deceased), Km. Kamni (sister-in-law of deceased) as well as Surendra and Subhash (distant relatives of the husband of deceased) with the allegations interalia that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the applicant four years back. She died on 06.12.2017, under unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial home. The F.I.R. further alleges that the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry, which was given by the informant in the marriage of his daughter and the accused persons were mounting pressure upon the deceased to bring one motorcycle and amount of Rs. 2 lac from her father. It is further alleged that on the information, when informant reached there, he found that dead body of his daughter was

¶10

hanging from the noose attached with hook of ceiling and her in-laws were fled away from the house.

¶11

5- The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 02.08.2018, but till date, his trial has not been concluded and the same is being delayed by the prosecution. It is also submitted that informant who is father of the deceased has been examined as PW-1 on 14.02.2022, but he has not supported the prosecution case, therefore, he has been declared hostile by the trial Court at the request of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgment 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

6- 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 trial is not proceeding effectively.

¶13

7- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that vide order of this Court dated 22.08.2022, a report was called for from the concerned Presiding OfÏcer with regard to present status of trial of the applicant. Pursuant to the said order, the trial Court submitted its report dated 12.09.2022 which is on record mentioning therein that up to 04.01.2022, five prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, but since 30.03.2022 remaining prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial Court despite sending summons, warrant and radiogram. It is also mentioned that on 30.05.2022 a letter was also given to the Commissioner of Police, NOIDA, but till date, Investigation OfÏcer has not appeared

¶14

before the trial Court, therefore, the further proceeding before the trial Court is not going on.

¶15

8- 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 :-

¶16

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. "

¶17

9- 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, long detention period of the applicant and the status of trial as noted above, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶18

10- Let the applicant- Ranjeet , 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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

¶21

facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶24

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

¶25

12- It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Kashifa

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet 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

Ramjanam @ Majhi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Malik Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Sohit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shaukeen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salman @ Baqar @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.