Dismissed

Seetu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2023BAIL/31936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application regarding assault charges leading to death. Applicant claimed false implication due to COVID-19 hindering treatment. Court rejected bail citing NCR as dying declaration and lack of early trial conclusion prospects.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial directed to be concluded within one year.

What the court decided

Seetu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31936 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Seetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Haider,Amarjeet Choudhary,Girja Shanker Sen,Jitendra Singh,Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Madan Singh,Rajesh Yadav,Shashi Dhar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Kumar Gautam

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2020, U/S 304, 323, 504 of IPC, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant under the influence of intoxication, is stated to have assaulted his wife (now deceased) on 15.05.2020 at about 08:00 PM when she was cooking food in her house and had caused injuries to her head. An NCR was lodged by his wife on 16.05.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim had sustained minor injuries and owing to covid-19 conditions, she could not get proper treatment and, as such, she has succumbed to injuries. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim was rushed to nearby government hospital CHC, Bilari for her treatment whereby she was examined and a lacerated wound was observed in her head on right side and a abrasion was also found

¶9

on right side of her face. Learned counsel has also stated that later on she was admitted to the private Cosmos Hospital on 16.05.2020 and was discharged from there on the next day i.e. on 17.05.2020 as she was referred for treatment at higher level hospital then she was admitted at LLRM, Medical College, Meerut where she expired on the same day. The case was later on transformed to Section 304 IPC.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The charge was framed on 09.09.2021. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial as no witness has been examined to date and the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.05.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the NCR tantamounts to dying declaration of the deceased wherein the victim herself has stated that the applicant had assaulted her and she herself went to the police station to lodge the said NCR, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, pending trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the NCR lodged by the deceased herself, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the

¶13

applicant on bail.

¶14

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶15

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.3.2023 Siddhant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Seetu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Seetu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranveer Vs State of U.P.

Anshu @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh @ Yash @ Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Tarzen Shaw Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Nath Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Bahadur Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another