The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137049 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26586 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,Damodar Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
10. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused. 11. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280 the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. 12. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. 13. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant." 14. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. The State of Rajasthan (2022) 3 SCC 501 it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. AShis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Iswarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2022)8 SCC 559. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the FIR being prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 16. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 17. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before
Arguments
2. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Damodar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Tamkuhiraj, District- Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 11.06.2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 02.03.2025. 5. 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. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there are general and omnibus allegations levelled against all the accused persons. The allegation of applicant demanding a dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- is false as it was the applicant to had given the amount to informant and the said fact stands fortified from Annexure No.12. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased died within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner. 9. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.