Imtiaz v. State of U.P
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27263 of 2025 Imtiaz State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Satish Kumar Shukla : : G.A. Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Shukla the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite paty-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Imtiaz seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Rai Bazar, District-Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2020 (State Vs. Intiaz) now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar. 4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 25.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35872 of 2023 (Imtiaz Vs. State of U.P..). For ready reference, the order dated 25.09.2023 is reproduced herein-under: "1. Heard Smt. Abha Gupta, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State 2. Perused the record. 3. Instant bail application has been filed by applicant-Imtiaz seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0221 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Rai Bazar, District-Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial i.e. Session Trial No. 02 of 2020 (State Vs. Imtiaz and others) now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for applicant contends that though the applicant is a named as 2 BAIL No. 27263 of 2025 well as charge-sheeted accused inasmuch as charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 29.10.2019 yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that in the F.I.R. there are as many as eight named accused. However, charge sheet has been submitted only against five named accused including applicant whereas three of the named accused have been exculpated. Applicant is in jail since 05.08.2019. As such, he has undergone four years of incarceration. The trial is in progress. Upto this stage all the prosecution witnesses of fact have not yet been examined. As per charge sheet 22 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. Deposition of all the witnesses is not possible within a short time. Considering the period of incarceration, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The police report (charge- sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. As such no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicant. He therefore contends 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. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charged sheeted accused therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. He further submits that the cause of death of the deceased as opined by Autopsy Surgeon is shock and septicaemia as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. Attention of the Court was then invited to the dying declaration of the deceased, copy of which is on record at page 107 of the paper book. The deceased in her aforesaid dying declaration has clearly implicated the applicant for immolating the victim. She has also narrated the subsequent events which occurred after the victim was immolated by the applicant. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicant has been clearly implicated by the victim in her dying declaration, therefore, no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of the applicant.As such no good or sufficient ground exists to enlarge the applicant on bail 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 7. Having 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 as per the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon the cause of death of deceased is shock and septicaemia as a result of ante mortem burn injuries, the deceased in her dying declaration has clearly implicated the applicant, applicant who is the husband of the 3 BAIL No. 27263 of 2025 deceased and an inmate of the house is under heavy burden to explain the manner of occurrence by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, however the applicant has miserably failed to discharge the said burden, moreover the submission urged by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. 9. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 25.9.2023 " 5. Learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail has made following submissions: a. Applicant is in jail since 05.08.20219. As such, he has undergone more than six years and two months of incarceration. b. The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record warranting custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. c. In the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., 22 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. Out of 22 prosecution witnesses so nominated in the charge sheet/police report, 8 witnesses are witnesses of fact. However, upto this stage all the witnesses of fact have not deposed before court below. Upto this stage only two prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before court below. 6. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the trial of applicant is not proceeding at the required pace but at a snail's pace on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial. Placing reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, the learned counsel for applicant contends that right to speedy trial is now recognized as a fundamental right of an accused. Since the applicant is in jail, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the delay in proceeding of trial. The delay in proceeding of trial is on account of indifferent conduct of the prosecution itself. On the above conspectus, he therefore submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. 4 BAIL No. 27263 of 2025 7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the deceased before her death had made a dying declaration, which was duly recorded. In the aforesaid dying declaration, applicant has been implicated in the crime in question. Apart from above, applicant is the husband of the deceased, who was his wife. The occurrence has taken place within seven years of marriage and in the house of applicant, therefore, burden is upon applicant himself to explain the manner of occurrence. However, up to this stage, the said burden has not been discharged by applicant. He therefore submits that considering the above, period of incarceration undergone by applicant during pendency of trial and the delay in proceedings of trial cannot be said to be so sufficient a circumstance so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. Learned A.G.A. thus submits that in view of above, the present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected. 8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant reiterated his earlier submission urged by him. 9. Having 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 this Court finds that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat application for bail as noted herein above could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the role of applicant in the crime in question as noted herein above and 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. 10. As a result, present third application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. 11. It is accordingly rejected. October 10, 2025 YK (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad