Allahabad High Court
Subhas Chandra @ Subhas vs State Of U.P. on 29 April, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:76141 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3805 of 2023 Applicant :- Subhas Chandra @ Subhas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth,Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Shekhar Saran Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Chandra Shekhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Subhas Chandra @ Subhas, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.605 of 2020, u/s 302 IPC, P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj.
4. This is a second bail application. The first two bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide orders dated 4.1.2021 and 23.7.2021 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.48298 of 2020 and 15098 of 2021.
5. The fresh and new ground as argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that three witnesses have been examined till date only in the trial in which first informant Anil Kumar has been examined as P.W.1, Vijendra Kumar has been examined as P.W.2 and Anisha who is the daughter of the deceased and applicant has been examined as P.W.3. It is argued that perusal of the statement of P.W.3 along with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would go to show that she is a tutored witness inasmuch as there are serious contradictions in the same, as such the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since19.8.2020.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that since the trial is in progress, releasing the applicant at this stage may have adverse effect on trial. There is no fresh and new ground, hence present bail application be rejected by this Court.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court as being perfunctory vide order dated 4.1.2021. Subsequently the second bail application was rejected vide order dated 23.7.2021, the said order is extracted hereunder:-
"Sri Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant today in Court, which has been taken on record.
Heard Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Subhas Chandra alias Subhas, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 605 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj.
The first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48298 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 4.1.2021 as being perfunctory and not on merit.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is husband of the deceased but it is a case of sudden quarrel in which the applicant and his family members have been falsely implicated. It is argued that the applicant in a stage of anger and rage due to sudden quarrel between himself and his wife, assaulted the deceased who later on died. It is argued that as such the present case will not be a case under Section 302 I.P.C. but a lesser offence. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents as stated in para-11 of the affidavit and is in jail since 19.8.2020.
Per contra, learned counsels for the first informant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the deceased received four injuries amongst which one was a ligature mark and there were three abrasions. The cause of death opined by the doctor is due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. It is further argued that Kumari Aneesha the daughter of the applicant, is the eye witness of the incident who stated that the applicant first banged the head of his wife on wall and then strangulated her with the help of a cloth. It is argued that as such there is an eye witness account also and the daughter who is aged about eight (8) years, is a natural witness. It is argued that the applicant is the main accused in the matter. It is thus argued that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the applicant has been named as an accused in the F.I.R. and there is an eye witness account who has stated that the applicant has banged the head of the deceased on wall after which she fell down and then she was strangulated by the applicant. The post mortem report corroborates with the prosecution story and more particularly the eye witness account.
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."
8. The ground as pressed and argued in this third bail application is the statement of the daughter of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.3 before the trial court from which she be considered to be tutored witness by seeing the contradictions in her statement recorded during investigation. At this stage the same cannot be looked into by this Court. It is for the trial court to appreciate at the proper and appropriate stage. I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2024 Gaurav Kuls