Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14424 of 2021 Applicant :- Satyaveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar,Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned AGA 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 Satyaveer seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 315 of 2019, under Sections 147, 302, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Highway, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the trial in the present case has started in which the statement of the first informant who is the mother of the deceased has been recorded as PW-1, copy of the said statement has placed before the Court which is annexed as annexure 7 to the affidavit. It is argued that although the informant has supported the prosecution version in her examination-in-chief but while being cross examined she has given different version as that of her examination-in-chief and the First Information Report. It is argued that as such the false implication of the applicant is apparent. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.04.2019.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There are allegations against the applicant in the First Information Report and even in the examination-in-chief of PW-1. The reply of cross-examination is a matter of appreciation in trial. It is further argued that even there was an attempt to dispose of the body of the deceased which on the interference of the first informant and her family members was stopped but the body was burnt and as such the cause of death could not be ascertained as chared body was recovered by the police which is evident from the postmortem report. It is argued that since the trial is under progress, release of the applicant at this stage, may have an adverse effect therein and there are good chances of his tampering with evidence.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that there was an attempt to dispose of the dead body. The first informant who has been examined as PW-1 has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
Looking to the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to legal impediment.
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 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)