HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 56389 of 2019
Applicant :- Satendra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Naveen Kumar Yadav
Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal and Sri Naveen Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Nagendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant – Satendra Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. – 1267 of 2019, under Sections – 498A, 323, 307, 506 IPC, Police Station – Sahibabad, District – Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of cruelty, attempt to commit murder and other charges, punishable with imprisonment upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 15.6.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 28.6.2019;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) charge-sheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that marriage between the applicant and victim was solemnized in the year 2003 whereas the incident took place on 26/27.5.2019. During this long period of almost 16 years, there was no earlier complaint and in the meanwhile, victim gave birth to two children. In such circumstances, it has been submitted that the occurrence was a pure accidental occurrence wherein the victim fell of the balcony from the second floor and received fatal injuries, for which she remained hospitalized for about three months. However, since the victim stayed in coma throughout her treatment, no statement came to be recorded. In that context, delay in FIR is stated to be vital, inasmuch as, the same was lodged with delay of about 20 days after the occurrence. In any case, the allegations made against the other family members of the applicant have been found to be false during investigation. Reference has also been made to injury report, which according to the applicant, do not bring out any antemortem injuries as may establish any forceful act on part of the applicant in throwing the victim of the balcony. In such circumstances, it has been submitted that the applicant has become entitled to bail, at this stage, as the trial is going to take very long time to conclude.
4. The bail application of the applicant has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant that victim had been done to death by the present applicant. Reference has also been made to the documents annexed with the bail application including the statement of the child of the victim who is alleged to have stated the applicant had caused the death. Further, it has been submitted that, subsequently, the Investigating Officer has submitted supplementary chargesheet with respect to offence alleged under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the present application cannot be heard at this stage.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it cannot be disputed that the marriage was almost 16 years old and there was no other or earlier complaint of demand of dowry or assault made against the applicant. Also, two children are admitted to have been born from that marriage. As to the statement of the child witness, he has only admitted to a frequent quarrel between his parents but he has not made any statement as to the occurrence. In such facts, since the FIR itself was lodged with a delay of twenty days and yet no cognizance has been taken to the supplementary chargesheet, inasmuch as, the Magistrate has doubted the manner in which certain parcha has been inserted in the case diary, there is no defect found in the bail application. The informant shall remain entitled to object to grant of bail under Section 302 IPC, if and when such need arises.
6. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 10.1.2020