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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail rejected; however, the trial court is directed to decide Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2016 expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Amit @ Pavva, arraigned in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime No. 129 of 2015) under Sections 302, 354, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Rohata, District Meerut, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the factum of the dying declaration of the deceased, the Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is devoid of merits and is rejected.

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and Hussain v. Union of India, if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶¶15
The observations in the order are limited to the facts pertaining to disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3379 of 2020 (Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal, J., order dated 24.2.2023) — Bail rejected. Applicant Amit @ Pavva sought bail in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 129 of 2015) under Sections 302, 354, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Rohata, District Meerut, for allegedly sprinkling kerosene oil on the informant's wife in an inebriated state and setting her afire. Counsel for the applicant urged false implication, delay of about seven hours in the FIR without explanation, non-support of the prosecution story by court-examined witnesses, the snail's pace of trial, absence of criminal history, and reliance on Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan; the applicant was in jail since 4.8.2015. The learned A.G.A. opposed bail, pointing to the dying declaration of the deceased recorded under Section 32, Indian Evidence Act on 3.8.2015, supported by a doctor's certificate, attributing the crime to the applicant. Holding that, in view of the dying declaration, it was not a fit case for bail, the Court rejected the application as devoid of merits, but directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within one year of production of a certified copy of the order, in view of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, if there is no legal impediment. Observations were confined to the bail application and were stated to have no bearing on the merits during trial.

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3379 of 2020

Applicant :- Amit @ Pavva Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav,Pradip Narain Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Third supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard Sri Pradip Narain Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.129 of 2015, under Sections 302, 354, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Rohata, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have come to the house of the informant in an inebriated state and is stated to have sprinkled kerosene oil on the wife of the informant and set her afire.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has stated that the prosecution witnesses examined in court have not supported the prosecution story. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and there is no likelihood of its early conclusion. Learned counsel has further placed much reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 LawSuit(SC) 725 . There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.8.2015.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a dying declaration of the deceased recorded under the provisions of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act on 3.8.2015 which categorically indicates that it was the applicant who had committed the said crime. There is

doctor's certificate to the said dying declaration also.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the factum of dying declaration of the deceased, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

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 from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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.

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.

Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Vikas

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad