Murli Manohar Joshe v. State of UP)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16162 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35348 of 2022 Applicant :- Joshe Prajapati @ Murli Manohar Joshe Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Hardev Singh,Ramesh Chandra Agrahari,Subhash Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Hardev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. 2. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Joshe Prajapati @ Murli Manohar Joshe, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 364 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44413 of 2021 (Joshe Prajapati @ Murli Manohar Joshe vs. State of UP). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the present bail is the second bail application and the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Usha but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing supplementary affidavit dated 31.08.2024 and its Annexure - 1 being the cross- examination of PW1, it is further submitted that the said witness has stated about the false implication of the applicant and has stated that there were many accused in the matter but he has lodged the FIR only against four persons, two of the accused were of his village. It is submitted, as such, the said witness is not trustworthy. Further while, placing third supplementary affidavit dated 03.01.2025 and its Annexures SAI, SAII, it is submitted that Shiv Dayal Prajapati, the brother of the deceased was examined as PW 2, Krishna Kumar, mama of the deceased was examined as PW3 and perusal of the statements of the said witnesses also would go to show that the implication of the applicant in the present matter is false. It is submitted that the out of 23 witnesses only three witnesses have been examined till date and as such, the trial will take time for its conclusion, applicant be thus released on bail. Applicant is in jail since 02.11.2020. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that first bail of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter was going on in which three witnesses have been examined, who have supported the prosecution case and, as such, there is no fresh and new ground in the present second bail application. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2021. The same reads as under : "Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and perused the mate as rial on record. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Joshe Prajapati @ Murli Manohar Joshe, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.364 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S.- Shankargarh, District- Prayagraj. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the deceased Smt. Usha was solemnized on 29.05.2019 and she committed suicide on 04.10.2020. The applicant was present in Gujarat at his place of employment and after he received information about the aforesaid unfortunate incident, he came from there to his house. The deceased committed suicide which is suggestive from the post-mortem report wherein Doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and cause of the death is Asphyxia due to ante- mortem hanging. It is argued while placing paragraph Nos. 16 to 20 of the affidavit that the deceased and her Bhabhi had a quarrel after which deceased left the house of the first informant and came at her matrimonial house with her brother without informing to the applicant on 04.10.2019. It is argued that aforesaid quarrel was the reason for committing suicide of the deceased. It is argued that applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 36 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 02.11.2020. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in Para 21 of the affidavit, it is stated that deceased committed suicide in her parental house is false as the deceased died in her matrimonial house. It is argued that death of the deceased has taken place after seventeen months of her marriage and cause of death was ante-mortem hanging which is unnatural. Applicant is the husband of the deceased and he is named in the First Information Report and there is allegation against him to involve in the aforesaid alleged offence. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. " 7. The trial in the present matter is going on in which three witnesses have been examined, the said witness have supported the prosecution case. Appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded in the trial cannot be done in a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.. It is for the trial court to do the same in the trial at the appropriate stage. The trial is under progress and there is nothing concrete to show that there is any delay in trial. No ground for bail is made out. The present second bail application of the applicant is rejected. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Priya (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad