Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2709 of 2014 Appellant :- Niranjan Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Neel Mani Sharma,Ram Kumar,S.R.Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 222379 of 2014 Heard Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is the husband of the deceased and the marriage of deceased was solemnized with Niranjan in the year 2005 and the deceased died on account of accidental death while working in the kitchen. He has further submitted that though there are two dying declaration of the deceased, one was recorded by DW-2 Vinod Kumar Tehsildar on 21.03.2010 in which the deceased has not levelled any allegation against the appellant and she stated that she died because the 'chimani' fallen on her body while she was taking salt in the kitchen. The second dying declaration was recorded on 23.03.2010 in which she has levelled the allegation against the appellant. He has further submitted that the subsequent dying declaration was recorded under the influence of her parents which is of no worthy and credence as in the first dying declaration she did not level any allegation against the appellant. It is further submitted that the first dying declaration which was recorded by Tehsildar, who was also produced as defence witness DW-2 and the second dying declaration which was recoded by another Tehsildar, who was also produced from the prosecution side as PW-7. It is also submitted that the Investigating officer soon after has recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim in which the deceased has repeated the version of the first dying declaration. Further the appellant was convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentence for 10 years and under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment. Even if the case is taken on its face value the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. appears to be too severe. It is further submitted that the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. has already been served out more than half of sentence. It is also submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty of bail. The appellant is languishing in jail since 01.07.2014.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awarded to the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the appellant Niranjan, convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 583 of 2010 (State vs. Niranjan and Others) arising out of case Crime No. 57 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 326, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
(Krishna Pratap Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.) Order Date :- 30.3.2018 A.K.Verma