Santosh Singh v. State of U.P

Order Date :- 7.5.2024. "

¶5Learned counsel for applicant contends that subsequent to the above order dated 07.05.2024, the trial of applicant commenced before court below. The first informant i.e. father of deceased namely Lala @ Ganesh Singh has deposed before court below as P.W.-1. His deposition as recorded before court below has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of this repeat application for bail. Referring to the examination-in-chief of the aforesaid witness, the learned counsel for applicant submits that aforementioned witness in his examination-in-chief has not fully supported the F.I.R. He therefore contends that once the first informant has himself has not supported the F.I.R. in his examination-in-chief then no justifiable ground exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. As such, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 01.05.2023. As such, he has under-gone more than one year and six months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶7Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Agni Pal Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. contends that even though, this court is a superior court, dictates of prudence require that no such exercise of evaluating the evidence which has emerged during the pendency of trial be undertaken by this Court as any such exercise undertaken by this Court will amount to per-empting the trial and may prejudice the prosecution or the defence. Furthermore, P.W.-1 has not been declared hostile. Upto this stage, no adverse inference can be drawn against P.W.-1. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶9Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant, coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition of this repeat application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶10As a result, present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶11It is accordingly rejected.

¶6Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is the husband of deceased, a charge sheeted accused and facing trail before Court below, however, in view of the facts as have now emerged on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶7In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 1.5.2025. As such, he has undergone more than two years of incarceration. The deposition of first informant/opposite party-1 has already been recorded before Court below. On the above premise, he submits that in case applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. He, therefore submits that no useful purpose shall now be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicant. Upto this stage, four prosecution witness have deposed before Court below. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, upto this stage no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Referring to the material on record, learned counsel for applicant contends that prima facie the death of deceased is a suicidal death and not homicidal. The said fact is substantiated with the aid of the post moretem of the deceased, wherein the Doctor has opined that no external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.

¶8It is further submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that all other charge sheeted accused have already been enlarged on bail. On the cumulative strength of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶9Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1 and and Mr. Agni Pal Singh, the learned counsel for first informant, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased and just after expiry of a period of one year and 15 days, the deceased committed suicide. They therefore submit that the death of the deceased is a highly unnatural death. Since the applicant is husband of deceased and death of the deceased has occurred in the house of the applicant itself, burden is upon the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence and also his innocence in view of section 106 and 113 B of the Evidence Act. However, aforesaid burden has not been discharged by applicant up to this stage. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel representing first informant , that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶10Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State,, the learned counsel representing first informant upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicants, accusations made coupled with the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and facing trail before Court below, however, this Court finds that applicant is in jail since 1.5.2025, as such, he has undergone more than two years of incarceration, the police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. having been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, the learned A.G.A. could not point out from record any such incriminating circumstance from the record, necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 37, charges have already been framed against applicant and other charge sheeted accused, the trial has already commenced, upto to this stage, four prosecution witness have deposed before court below, the deposition of first informant/opposite party-1 has already been recorded before Court below, In case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicant shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial, as per post mortem report of the deceased, the death of the deceased is suicidal, the autopsy surgeon who conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased has clearly opined that except for ligature mark, no other external or internal ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. to the present application for bail but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.

¶12Let the applicant Santosh Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶13However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Arshad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17717 of 2025 Applicant :- Santosh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Surendra Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Agni Pal Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant by filing his vakalatnama today in Court, which is taken on record. 2. Perused the record. 3. This third application for bail has been filed by applicant- Santosh Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. Police Station-Sachedi, District-Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.1158 of 2023 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. Police Station-Sachedi, District-Kanpur Nagar now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar. 4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 07.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9876 of 2024 (Santosh Singh Vs. State of U.P.). 5. Thereafter applicant filed his repeat application for bail which was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40801 of 2024 (Santosh Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below: 1. Heard Mr. Utkarsh Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for Stat-opposite party-1 and Mr. Agni Pal Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant. 2. Perused the record. 3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Santosh Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. Police Station- Sachedi, District-Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.1158 of 2023 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. Police Station-Sachedi, District-Kanpur Nagar now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar. 4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 07.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9876 of 2024 (Santosh Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 07.05.2024 is reproduced herein-under: "Heard Mr. Jagmohan Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Agni Pal Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Santosh Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2023, under Sections 498- A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sachendi, district Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.1158 of 2023 (State Vs. Santosh Singh and others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sachendi, district Kanpur Nagar, now pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar. Perused the record. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co- accused Kajol @ Komal and Dashrath Singh have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43850 of 2023 (Kajol @ Komal Vs. State of U.P.) decided along with connected Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42248 of 2023 (Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 02.12.2023 is reproduced herein-below : "Heard Mr. Jagmohan Singh, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Nigam, the learned counsel representing first informant. These applications for b