Single judge allowed a criminal bail application under Sections 498-A, 304B, and 201 IPC, noting speedy trial violations and lack of criminal history, imposing standard bail conditions.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties to satisfaction of the court below.
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.
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52109 of 2022 Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in S.T. No. 419 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 228 of 2018 at Police StationKaundhiyara, District- Prayagraj, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 15.06.2018.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned trial court on 01.11.2022.
The following arguments made by Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
(1). The applicant is the husband of the deceased.
(2). The deceased had disappeared from the house and the applicant informed the family
members of the deceased promptly as well as to the police authorities.
(3). Two days later the body of the deceased was recovered from the nearby well.
(4). The post mortem report opines the cause of death by drowning.
(5). No antimortem injuries are depicted on the body of the deceased in the postmortem report.
(6). The trial is moving at a snail's pace and and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial. The trial court in its status report has recorded that the informant has been avoiding the summons and not cooperating with the trial.
(7). Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant.
(8). The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.
(9). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
(10). The applicant is not a flight risk. The
applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Sarvesh Kumar 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Pravin
Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving Sections 498-A, 304B, and 201 IPC.
Sarvesh Kumar
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
