Allahabad High Court
Shivnandan vs State Of U.P. on 10 January, 2020
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26752 of 2018 Applicant :- Shivnandan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajnish Kumar Pandey,Santosh Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sukhvir Singh Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajnish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sukhvir Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Shivnandan with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2017, under Section 326A IPC, Police Station - Gandhi Park, District - Aligarh, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of causing grievous hurt with acid, punishable with imprisonment upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 16.05.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 17.05.2017;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, the trial has remained pending;
4. On prima facie basis, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the victim, who happens to be his estranged wife. Reference has also been made to the injuries claimed to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the assault committed by the victim herself. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and his liberty has remained curtailed for a very long time and therefore he may be enlarged on bail at this stage.
5. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA, who would submit that there are allegations of acid attack made against the applicant by none other than his own wife. Reference has also been made to the injury report of the victim Gudia to submit that the same is wholly corroborated with the FIR allegation.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the allegation of acid attack has been made by none other than the applicant's own wife and the injuries appear to be prima facie established, no ground for grant of bail to the applicant is made out, at this stage.
7. The bail application accordingly is rejected.
8. However, liberty of the applicant cannot hang in lurch for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, it is expected that the trial court shall make all efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C.
9. In case, the trial is not concluded within one year, it shall be open to the applicant to apply for fresh bail application annexing therewith the complete copy of the ordersheet of the trial proceedings.
Order Date :- 10.1.2020 AHA