Single judge Allowed bail to applicant Deshbandhu charged under Section 498-A IPC, invoking that undertrials cannot be detained indefinitely pending trial when primary witnesses turn hostile without corroborating the prosecution.
Release of applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with conditions against tampering and influencing witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97921
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35705 of 2020
Applicant :- Deshbandhu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra,Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deep Chand Singh
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deep Chand Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 25 of 2019 (S.T. No. 133 of 2019), under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of IPC & 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Khampar, District Deoria with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case being husband of the deceased Jyoti who married with the applicant in the year 2017. It is further submitted that a female child was also born from their wedlock. It is further submitted that Jyoti (deceased) died on 31.01.2019 at her in-laws' house due to sudden stomach pain. It is further submitted that statements of PW1 /Informant Smt. Indu Devi (mother of the deceased), PW2 Atul Kumar (cousin brother of the deceased) and PW3 Vivek Kumar (brother of the deceased) were recorded before the trial court, they have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2019 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. 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 v. Union of India SCC para-15 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, the 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."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that PW1 /Informant Smt. Indu Devi (mother of the deceased), PW2 Atul Kumar (cousin brother of the deceased) and PW3 Vivek Kumar (brother of the deceased) were examined before the trial court and they have not supported the prosecution story, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Deshbandhu in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). 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 facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023/AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant qualifies for release on bail given his innocence claim, enduring incarceration, and hostile prosecution witnesses.
Whether the prolonged detention undersec 498-A IPC necessitates enlargement in light of evidence weaknesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. K.A. NajeebFollowed¶10
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶10
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶10
In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Deshbandhu
Mayank Kumar Jain
Ashok Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mayank Kumar Jain and Ashok Kumar Tripathi
Parties & counsel
