High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101504 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20647 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajan Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Ranjan,Amit Daga,Manglam Pandey,Mayank Chandra,Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Khalid Mahmood Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
11. The same principle has been reiterated by this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 12. Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, this court had declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is "implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court". Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a procedure that is "reasonable, fair and just" it was held that: "Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just" unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21." 13. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar,
Arguments
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Kumari Khushi Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.224 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahuadeen, District- Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant as per Hindu Rites on 11.5.2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.20,000/- as dowry, thereby led her to death on 27.8.2022 and the informant was informed at about 03:00 a.m. that his sister had expired. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no external injury observed by the doctor except a ligature mark on the neck. The doctor conducting her autopsy opined that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.8.2022 and during the intervening period of three years only one witness of fact i.e. informant has been examined and his cross-examination could be completed on 16.4.2025 itself. The said witness during cross-examination has categorically stated that when he reached the house of the applicant he found the door locked from inside and the victim was hanging to the ceiling. After him reaching the house, the said door was broken open, as such, it is a clear cut case of suicide by the deceased person due to depression. The said fact stands fortified from the statements of witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 11. Allowing the bail of the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 645 the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. 9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court, (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: "What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."