Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30544 of 2017 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Kumar Bhartiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K.Bhartiya, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.22 of 2017, under Sections 498- A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Dhina, District-Chandauli.
3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that Informant himself has not supported FIR version and clearly stated that deceased has committed suicide. There is no eye witness of the incident. Applicant is in jail since 26.01.2017. There are no chances of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with prosecution evidence. He undertakes to appear personally on each and every date and also not seek any unnecessary adjournment during trial. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse liberty of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer for bail but could not place anything before this Court so as to bring any circumstance existing, justifying denial of bail to accused-applicant.
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. In view of above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I think it appropriate to release applicant on bail.
8. Let applicant, Santosh Kumar involved in Case Crime No.22 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Dhina, District-Chandauli, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with following conditions:
(I) The applicant will not temper with the evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before Trial Court on the date fixed.
(iv) The applicant shall report to the Police Station concerned in the first week of each month to show his good conduct and behaviour.
9. In case of breach of any of above conditions by applicant, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 KA