Allowed

Aman Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023BAIL/25097/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed repeat bail application in dowry death case, citing prolonged trial delay and clean antecedents despite prima facie suicidal death finding. Applicant ordered to furnish bond and strict conditions imposed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial conduct and absence.

Aman Singh Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170540

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25097 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chetan Chatterjee

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. R.C. Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Chetan Chatterjee, the learned counsel representing first informant.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicantAman Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Rampura, District-Jalaun during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2019 (State Vs. Aman Singh and Others) now pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai.

¶9

The first bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 28.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7269 of 2020 (Aman Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is re-produced hereinunder:-

¶10

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

¶11

As per the prosecution case, the applicant is the husband; marriage is of one year; the deceased was subjected to injury by sharp weapon (knife); the knife was found from the site; the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecution is unable to explain knife found from the site, evidence has been tampered.

¶13

It is not in the public interest to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the

¶15

applicant.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶17

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same expeditiously on day to day basis from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if, there is no legal impediment.

¶18

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial court for compliance."

¶19

Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The incident giving rise to present criminal proceeding occurred on 27.05.2019. Applicant was taken into custody on 23.06.2019. The charge sheet was submitted against applicant on 20.08.2019. After submission of aforesaid charge sheet cognizance was taken upon same by concerned Magistrate. Since the crime in question is exclusively triable by court of Sessions, accordingly, concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2019 (State Vs. Aman Singh and Others) came to be registered. However, in spite of the fact that a period of almost 5 years has rolled by from the date of the commencement of aforementioned sessions trial, the statement in chief/examination in chief of only one prosecution witness of fact i.e. PW-1 Vijay Pratap Singh-First Informant has been recorded. The statement of PW-2 is still going on.

¶20

On the above premise, he submits that even though a period of almost 5 years has rolled by, the trial has not yet concluded. Applicant cannot be held guilty for causing delay in the conclusion of trial as he is in custody. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225 , he submits that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. On account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution, the aforesaid fundamental right of the applicant has been infringed. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 23.06.2019. As such, he has undergone more than 5 years and 2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up

¶22

to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, the death of the deceased is priam-facie suicidal as in the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased is Shock and Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. He, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶23

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased on 26.04.2018 and the deceased i.e. the wife of applicant committed suicide at her marital home just after expiry of a period of 1 year and 1 month from the date of marriage i.e. 27.05.2019. The occurrence has taken place in the marital home of the deceased i.e. the house of the applicant and within 7 years of marriage. As such, the death of the deceased is a dowry death. By virtue of above, the burden is upon the applicant not only to explain the manner of occurrence but also his innocence in terms of Section 106 and 113B of the Evidence Act. However, the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden up to this stage. They, therefore, submit that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶24

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made and complicity of accused coupled with the fact that even the death of the deceased is a dowry death, the applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused but prima-facie the death of the deceased as per the post mortem report of the deceased is a suicidal death, the applicant is already facing trial, however, in spite of the fact that the concerned Sessions Trial is of the year, 2019, the statement in chief/examination in chief of any one prosecution witness has been examined up to this stage, applicant cannot be said to be responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial as he is in custody, the right to speed trial is a fundamental right of the accused, the

¶25

judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay (Supra) , the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶26

9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶27

Let the applicant-Aman Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:-

¶28

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶29

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶30

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶31

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶32

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶33

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his

¶34

bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶35

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Vinay

¶36

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

Aman Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman 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

Mohan @ Makarand Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Sahani @ Vikesh Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

M/S. Sophisticated Industrial Materials Vs M/S. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority and Another

Saurabh Yadav @ Kandu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.