HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 3791 of 2020
Applicant :- Virendra Gautam And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Mishra,P.K. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants – Virendra Gautam and Sm. Hemlata Gautam @ Omwati Gautam, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.- 1229 of 2017, under Sections – 147, 302, 498A, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station-Sikandara, District – Agra, during pendency of trial.
3. This is a second bail application filed by the present applicants. First bail application had been dismissed for want for prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 is the father-in-law of the deceased whereas applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, inasmuch as, they had estranged relationship with the deceased and her sister. The deceased and her sister had forcibly occupied the only immovable property owned by the applicants. The applicants had filed an injunction suit wherein injunction had been granted yet possession was never handed over to them.
5. In that background, the deceased committed suicide for the reasons which has been wrongly attributed to the applicants. In that regard, reference has been made to the chargesheet initially submitted by the police, under Section 306 IPC. Then, it has been submitted that the dying declaration is wholly manufactured, inasmuch as, upon the occurrence, the deceased was first admitted to S.N. Medical College, Agra and she died at Safdarganj Hospital at Delhi, after she was referred to that hospital for advanced medical care. In such circumstances, though the deceased was never admitted at the Pushpanjali hospital at Agra, the dying declaration has been manufactured at that hospital.
6. It has also been submitted that the applicants are in jail since 17.01.2018 i.e. for more than two years.
7. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA, who would submit that in the first place, final chargesheet was submitted by the police under Section 302 IPC and other allied sections. As to the dying declaration, it has been submitted that it was duly recorded and therefore the same cannot be lightly brushed aside. Further, it has been submitted that other than dying declaration, there are statements of two eye witnesses namely, the daughter of the deceased and the sister of the deceased, that fully corroborate the FIR allegations. At trial, the first informant has already been examined. Thus, it has been submitted that no case of bail is made out, in view of the specific accusation made against the applicants.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, no ground for bail is made at this stage, inasmuch as, besides the dying declaration, other ocular evidence is likely to arise at the trial, being the testimony of daughter of the deceased and her sister.
9. The fact that the applicants may have remained behind bars for more than two years may not be decisive to enlarge the applicants on bail in face of specific allegations of brutal occurrence. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
10. However, rejection of the bail application may not invite any indefinite detention of the applicant as he has already been in confinement for more than two years. It is observed that the trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today. Also, the trial court may keep in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. to ensure that the trial may be concluded within time indicated above.
Order Date :- 28.2.2020
Shubham
