High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79368 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17757 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Naresh Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Shankar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Shiv Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ram Naresh Bind, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in S.T. No. 261 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Jigna, District Mirzapur. 4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 6.4.2022 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.52591 of 2021. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that trial in the present matter is going on but has not yet concluded. It is argued that the Investigating Officer Pranay Prasoon Srivastava appeared before the trial court on 1.4.2023 and was examined as P.W.7 after which he has failed to appear for his cross-examination despite the trial court issuing non-bailable warrants against him since 3.5.2023 as such looking to the delay in trial and the fact that the Investigating Officer has not appeared before the trial court, the applicant be directed to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 15.4.2021. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the statement of the eye-witness Kumari Kiran @ Manthara was recorded as P.W.4 who is the daughter of the applicant and the deceased Smt. Gunja Devi who has supported the prosecution case and has stated about the implication and participation of the applicant in the present case. It is submitted that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits. There is no fresh and new ground argued. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected. It is further submitted that so far as Investigating Officer is concerned, he would ensure that he appears positively at the earliest before the trial court and if possible on the next date so that his testimony is recorded. 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 vide order dated 6.4.2022, the said order reads as under:- "Heard Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ram Naresh Bind, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in S.T. No. 261 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Jigna, District Mirzapur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel while placing para-15 of the affidavit has argued that on the day of incident the applicant had gone to his ancestral house at Khaira (Bagjodawar), Police Station-Jigna, District Mirzapur and stayed there in the night. On the morning, he received an information regarding death of his wife on which he reached his house and found his wife lying dead. It is argued that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2012 and from the wedlock, four children were born while the present incident is of 15.4.2021. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 22 and is in jail since 15.4.2021. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased apart from ligature mark, has received four other injuries on her body and cause of death has been opined as asphyxia due to strangulation. It is further argued that Kumari Kiran@Manthara aged about six years, who is the daughter of the applicant and the deceased, has in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated of the applicant strangulated her mother. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved in the matter. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased died due to strangulation. Apart from ligature mark, there are four other injuries on the body of the deceased. The applicant is husband. The daughter of the applicant and the deceased has stated of the applicant murdering her mother. The defence as taken by the applicant in para-15 of the affidavit does not inspire confidence. 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." 8. The second bail application has been filed with the arguments that the Investigating Officer Pranay Prasoon Srivastava, has failed to appear before the trial court after 1.4.2023. The order sheet of the trial court filed as annexure no.S.A-5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.4.2025 goes to show that non-bailable warrants have been issued against him since 3.5.2023 but still he has not appeared. This is totally not acceptable. Learned counsel for the State has assured the Court that the Investigating Officer will appear and give his testimony at the earliest before the trial court. The Court hopes that the same would be done at the earliest and refrains itself from passing any other order against him but S.P., Mirzapur is directed to ensure that he appears before the trial court at the earliest or on the next date for recording of his testimony and also ensure that the trial is not delayed because of the absence of formal witnesses who are Government Servant. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. Registrar (Compliance) shall communicate this order to the S.P. concerned and the trial court concerned forthwith. 11. However, the trial court is directed to look into the matter that the trial is not delayed unnecessarily and conclude the same expeditiously without granting any undue adjournments to either of the parties and if the Investigating Officer does not appear, it shall call upon the S.P. concerned and also to the officer posted in the district who is for service of summons and notice to witnesses to ensure compliance of its order. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad