Virendra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40871 of 2020 Applicant :- Virendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Santosh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.340 of 2017 at Police Station-Rampur Karkhana, District-Deoria under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant is in jail since 23.03.2019. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 13.03.2020. The following arguments made by Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶1The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased.

¶2The applicant did not harass the deceased or demand dowry.

¶3The applicant never interfered in the marital life of the victim and her husband. He resided separately along with his wife.

¶4The deceased was a temperamental lady who became depressed as her husband passed away about 6 months after her marriage. Thereafter, she resided separately.

¶5The deceased died of natural causes.

¶6The applicant did not aid or abet the suicide.

¶7The prerequisites for attracting the presumption and reversing the burden of proof are not established in the facts and circumstances and evidence of the case.

¶8The applicant is a law abiding citizen and had always cooperated with the investigations and joined the trial. The applicant never tampered with evidence nor did he influence any witness.

¶9The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution witnesses proposes 12 witnesses to examine to bring home the charges against the applicant. However, only one witness has been fully examined till date.

¶10The trial is moving at a snail's pace and and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

¶11Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without being any evidence against the applicant. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated.

¶12The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶13The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Virendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned District Judge, Deoria shall personally monitor the progress of the trial on weekly basis. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned District Judge, Deoria by the Registrar (Compliance) by FAX. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Ashish Tripathi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad