Dismissed

Rajesh Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023BAIL/6810/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects a bail application filed by an accused charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. While the High Court does not express an opinion on the merits, it refuses bail due to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased in the applicant's presence. The Court directs expeditious trial disposal to prevent prolonged detention.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected; the case pending trial to be decided expeditiously within one year.

Rajesh Pal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6810 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2021, under Sections 323 & 304 of IPC, Police Station Malwan, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu Rites about 14 years before her death. The applicant is stated to have inflicted injuries to her head and body on 02.07.2021 at about 01:00 AM in his house. She was admitted in District Hospital, Fatehpur and later on referred to Kanpur whereby she was admitted at Akshat Hospital and succumbed to injuries at 05:00 PM. The FIR was lodged on 04.07.2021 at about 09:32 AM.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The

¶10

deceased person had fallen from the stairs and, as such, sustained injuries. No cause of offence has been mentioned in the FIR. 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 the applicant is a poor labourer and he has no criminal history to his credit . The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.07.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased person has sustained injuries on various parts of her body including both sides of her skull and even her ribs have been found broken. She has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and, thus, the onus lies upon him to explain as to how and under what circumstances, she has sustained injuries and then expired. Therefore, the applicant 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 fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and only he been nominated in the FIR, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶14

However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it

¶15

is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year or 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 :- 27.2.2023 Siddhant

¶18

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

Rajesh Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Pal 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

Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amit @ Pavva Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Amar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Manjesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukul Pathak Vs State of U.P.