Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Unique Case ID No.02402R0251652013 Police Station Mandawali Under Section 498A/304­B/34 IPC State Versus Pawan Sharma etc. ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION OF ACCUSED SAVITRI DEVI Vide this order, I shall decide bail application filed behalf of accused/applicant Smt. Savitri Devi. It has been mentioned in the application that applicant/accused is in J/C since 10.05.2013 and she has spent 26 months and 12 days in custody; name of the accused appears in the list of 105 accused, which was submitted by Jail Authority to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is prayed that bail application of the accused may be considered in terms of directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled " R.D. Upadhyay vs. State of A.P. & Ors, writ petition(C) No.559/1994. It is prayed that applicant may be released on bail in the interests of justice. 2 Notice of the bail application was issued to the State. Arguments were heard. Ld. Amicus Curiae for the applicant/accused has reiterated the averments of bail application during arguments and has prayed that applicants may be released on bail as she is in J/C since May,2013 and trial of the case is likely to take time. On the other hand, Ld. Chief PP for the State has argued that material witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution and there are specific allegations of demand of dowry and harassment on account thereof against all the accused including present applicant, therefore, she does not deserve bail. 3 In para 4 of the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons ( Writ petition(Civil) No(s). 406/2013 dated 20.04.2015, following observations have been made:­ " A prisoner should be released after half the period of incarceration is undergone for the offence with the greater punishment. In our opinion, while this may be the requirement of Section 436A of the Code, it will be appropriate if in a case of multiple offences, a review is conducted after half the sentence of the lesser offence is completed by the under trial prisoner. It is not necessary or compulsory that an under trial prisoner must remain in custody for at least half the period of his maximum sentence only because the trial has not been completed in time."

4 Relevant portion of Section 436A Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinunder:­ "436A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detailed.­­Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending upto one­half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties." 5 In the judgment Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons(supra), in para 4 first part of Section 436A Cr.P.C. which gives an exception to the offences which are punishable with death is not covered and same has not been diluted, although second part of said para which deals for one half of imprisonment specified for other offences has been diluted.