This is the second bail application on behalf of the accused/applicant. The first Bail Application i.e. Bail No. 10966 of 2016 was decided on merits on 20.12.2018, whereby the bail application of the applicant was rejected.
In short, the version of F.I.R. is that the marriage of the deceased (sister of the informant) was solemnized five years back with Bablu @ Pradeep Yadav (accused-applicant). After three years of marriage, "Gauna" ceremony of his sister (deceased) was performed and she went to her matrimonial home but after few days of "Gauna" ceremony, in-laws started to torture and harass the sister of the informant and ousted her from the house for want of dowry. In this regard, earlier a case was registered that was still pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich. After lodging of the case, in-laws of his sister came and after written compromise in the presence of respectable persons of the Society, they took back his sister to her matrimonial home. After eight months, the informant received information that his sister has been killed by putting on her fire by the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case.The applicant has no concern with the alleged crime and there is no direct evidence on record against the applicant. Apart from this, two co-accused persons, who have been assigned the similar role, have already been enlarged on bail, hence the applicant should be enlarged on bail. Further, it has also been submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant is languishing in jail since long and five years have passed and the trial has not yet been concluded, hence on the basis of long detention in jail, he is entitled to be released on bail because due to delay in trial, his fundamental right as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.
Contrary to it, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the bail application of the applicant and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and it is the liability of the applicant to protect the life of his wife, who died unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court and no new ground which was not available at the time of dismissal of the first bail application, has been mentioned in the present bail application. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. 1998(37) ACC 287 and the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarka Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another, 2005 (51) ACC 727 (SC), the second bail application on the grounds, which were available at the time of dismissal of first bail application, is not maintainable and the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.
Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits and the applicant being the husband of the deceased is fully responsible of security and welfare of his wife, who allegedly killed by putting her on fire, in her matrimonial home. It has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that the accused-appellant along with other co-accused persons killed the deceased by putting her on fire.
So far as the bail granted to the co-accused persons namely Smt. Munni Devi and Bajrang Yadav is concerned, the ground of their age and being mother in law and father in law of the deceased was taken, whereas the case of the applicant and that of her husband, is not similar, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail on ground of parity.
In my considered opinion, on the basis of delay in trial and long incarceration in jail, the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. In this context reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence , he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail, even as an under trial prisoner, would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence no case for bail is made out. The prayer for bail is declined and the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Arun