Allahabad High Court
Subhas Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 23 July, 2021
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15098 of 2021 Applicant :- Subhas Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
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.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)