Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Santosh Jaiswal vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 July, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15792 of 2021 Applicant :- Santosh Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Diwan Saifullah Khan
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankoor Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Santosh Jaiswal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 62 of 2020 (Session Trial No. 730 of 2020), under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kapsethi, District- Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. registered by Smt. Shivani Jaiswal who is sister of the deceased, is that on 27.3.2020 her sister was talking to someone due to which there was a fight and quarrel between the applicant and the deceased and in the night due to the said dispute at about 2.00A.M. Santosh Jaiswal who is the husband of the deceased and the brother-in-law of the first informant, murdered his wife Smt. Shivani Jaiswal by pressing her neck. It is stated that the first informant was living with her sister since last two months.
Learned counsel has placed before the Court the statement recorded in the trial court of the first informant Smt. Shivani Jaiswal, copy of which is annexure no. 4 to the affidavit and while placing the cross-examination of the same, has argued that she has stated that she does not remember as to whether on the day of incident she had gone to the house of her sister. It is argued that as such the presence of the first informant at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant has three minor children who at present moment are living with their maternal grand-father. It is argued that the applicant has no motive or intention to commit the present offence. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.3.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the post mortem examination report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution case as the doctor has found a contusion in front of neck. The cause of death has been opined by the doctor is asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is further argued that the first informant has in her statement particularly examination-in- chief supported the prosecution case. It is argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and there is no explanation coming forward regarding death of the deceased in the house wherein he was present as per the version of the prosecution. It is argued that burden is on the applicant to explain the death of his wife in his house while he was present there.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. Arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant for appreciating the statement of the first informant recorded during trial at this stage is not proper and would be proper to be adjudged and appreciated by the trial court. The post mortem report corroborates with the prosecution case.
Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Santosh Jaiswal vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 July, 2021
Judges
  • Samit Gopal
Advocates
  • Surendra Kumar Chaubey