Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30938 of 2017 Applicant :- Chandan Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Varun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by accused- applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 2201 of 2016, under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur.
3. It is stated by applicant that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
4. However, I find from perusal of record that applicant is the husband. The marriage of applicant with deceased was solemnized on 10.12.2011 and almost without five years from the date of marriage the incident had taken place wherein applicant's wife died due to hanging at the residence of applicant. Cause of death due to Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging has been shown in the post mortem examination report. FIR has been lodged by brother of deceased and not by applicant or his family members. The applicant being the husband owes sole responsibility to keep his wife with full dignity and lead her to a safer life irrespective of any situation.
5. Supreme Court in State though C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi 2005 (8) SCC 21 has also observed that normally bail should have been granted unless there exist circumstances/factors justifying denial thereof. Some of such circumstances have been stated as under:
"(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
6. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director, 2007 (1) SCC 70 while recognising that personal liberty is a valuable constitutional right recognized under Article 21, Court observed that while considering question of bail, judicial approach balancing personal liberty as well as interest of the society and also other relevant factors must be observed. Court further held that personal liberty of an accused or convict is also a fundamental right but if the circumstances so justify, it can be eclipsed. The length for which an accused has remained in jail before conviction, i.e., during investigation or trial, is a relevant consideration for the reason that in case ultimately the incumbent is found not guilty, i.e. having not committed any offence, it would be a travesty of justice to keep such a person in jail for years together and denial of personal liberty in such a case though may be mitigated by awarding appropriate compensation but cannot appropriately be compensated at all. Simply because Court takes a long time in trial, it will not be justified to keep a person in jail on the ground that Court or the prosecution is not efficient enough in completing trial in a reasonably short period and the incumbent must remain in jail, even though ultimately he may be found innocent. In fact, if a person is acquitted after a long and delayed trial, though incumbent was throughout in jail, even Judicial Officer would be having a feeling of contrition facing a situation where a person has served sufficiently a long term in imprisonment though, is found innocent and ultimately acquitted. No uniform principle can be laid down since every matter would depend on the circumstances of each case and it cannot be said that a person has remained in jail for long time, for that reason alone bail must be granted, but the period during which an incumbent has been remained in jail, during investigation or trial is a relevant factor. These are certain guidelines laid down in State through C.B.I. v. Amar Mani Tripathi (supra) were reiterated in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI (supra).
7. Looking to entire facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, at this stage, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail.
8. Application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 KA