High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Applicant :- Preeti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard Sri Anan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State. The present applicant is in jail since 11.06.2020 in case crime no. 274 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 of IPC at P.S. Gosainganj District Sultanpur. This is the second bail application, as the first bail application has been rejected by Hon Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. in Bail No. 10030 of 2020 vide order dated 15.12.2021. The order dated 15.12.2021, reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Smt. Preeti for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 274/2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur, during trial. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and she has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 11.6.2020. She is a lady and is not having any criminal history. The evidence against the applicant is of circumstantial nature and apart from confessional statement of the applicant there is no other evidence/ material available which may connect her with the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased was having dispute pertaining to some monetary transaction with his brother Vijay and on this score the murder might have been committed by the brother of the deceased Vijay and to conceal his offence he has become informant of the case. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that the accused- applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant has committed the murder of her own husband. At the time of incident she was sleeping with her husband (deceased). It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the statement of mother of the deceased, namely, Laxami Devi and the wife of informant Smt. Malti Devi have been recorded wherein they have stated that the deceased and the instant applicant were living separately in the same house and they heard some noise on the roof and knock the door which was opened by witness Malti Devi and they saw the dead body of the deceased. All the doors of the house were closed and the applicant Smt. Preeti, wife of the deceased was on the roof and they had seen her going to and coming down from the roof many times in that night and when asked applicant informed that she had gone to attend the call of nature and also that mosquitoes were bothering her. A blood stained 'Gandasa' has also been recovered on the pointing of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that applicant is the wife of deceased and in the night of the incident she was sleeping with the deceased. She was seen coming down and going upwards to the roof many times by the witnesses. The applicant and the deceased were living separately and on hearing some noise when the mother of the deceased made a noise and asked the wife of the informant to open the door and when they together went to the roof they found the deceased dead. The weapon of assault has also been recovered on the pointing of the applicant. It is vehemently submitted that having regard to the circumstances available against the applicant the only inference could be drawn is that it is only she who has committed the murder of her own husband. The applicant in her confessional statement has stated that her husband used to beat regularly and she got rid off him . Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus the application moved by the applicant- Smt. Preeti is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year from today. If the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today, the applicant may review his payer of bail. " Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this bail application only on the limited ground to the effect that despite the specific order being passed by this court to conclude the trial within one year, there is no good progress in the trial inasmuch as only five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 20. The current status report dated 30.01.2025 has been filed wherein this fact has been indicated. Therefore, the total period of incarnation of the present applicant, i.e., more than four years and six months may be considered in the light of the fact that the trial may not be concluded shortly. Besides, almost all fact/relevant witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606 granting bail to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration of that accused, therefore, they were entitled for bail. Para 15 of the case K.A.Najeeb (supra) is being reproduced here-in-below: "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the libertyguaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
13. The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) in para 4 has observed as under: "4. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court." Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the material and fact witnesses have been examined, the bail of the accused persons may be considered. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail for more than four years and six months; almost the fact and material witnesses have been examined; while rejecting the first bail application, this Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C. but the trial proceedings could not be expedited, therefore, it may be considered as a new ground to consider this second bail application; besides, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly inasmuch as there are total 20 prosecution witnesses and only 05 prosecution witnesses, mainly fact witnesses, have been examined, so considering the aforesaid dictums of Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the present applicant may be released on bail and thus, this second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Preeti be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Applicant :- Preeti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard Sri Anan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the State. The present applicant is in jail since 11.06.2020 in case crime no. 274 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 of IPC at P.S. Gosainganj District Sultanpur. This is the second bail application, as the first bail application has been rejected by Hon Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. in Bail No. 10030 of 2020 vide order dated 15.12.2021. The order dated 15.12.2021, reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Smt. Preeti for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 274/2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur, during trial. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and she has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 11.6.2020. She is a lady and is not having any criminal history. The evidence against the applicant is of circumstantial nature and apart from confessional statement of the applicant there is no other evidence/ material available which may connect her with the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased was having dispute pertaining to some monetary transaction with his brother Vijay and on this score the murder might have been committed by the brother of the deceased Vijay and to conceal his offence he has become informant of the case. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that the accused- applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant has committed the murder of her own husband. At the time of incident she was sleeping with her husband (deceased). It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the statement of mother of the deceased, namely, Laxami Devi and the wife of informant Smt. Malti Devi have been recorded wherein they have stated that the deceased and the instant applicant were living separately in the same house and they heard some noise on the roof and knock the door which was opened by witness Malti Devi and they saw the dead body of the deceased. All the doors of the house were closed and the applicant Smt. Preeti, wife of the deceased was on the roof and they had seen her going to and coming down from the roof many times in that night and when asked applicant informed that she had gone to attend the call of nature and also that mosquitoes were bothering her. A blood stained 'Gandasa' has also been recovered on the pointing of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that applicant is the wife of deceased and in the night of the incident she was sleeping with the deceased. She was seen coming down and going upwards to the roof many times by the witnesses. The applicant and the deceased were living separately and on hearing some noise when the mother of the deceased made a noise and asked the wife of the informant to open the door and when they together went to the roof they found the deceased dead. The weapon of assault has also been recovered on the pointing of the applicant. It is vehemently submitted that having regard to the circumstances available against the applicant the only inference could be drawn is that it is only she who has committed the murder of her own husband. The applicant in her confessional statement has stated that her husband used to beat regularly and she got rid off him . Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus the application moved by the applicant- Smt. Preeti is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year from today. If the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today, the applicant may review his payer of bail. " Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this bail application only on the limited ground to the effect that despite the specific order being passed by this court to conclude the trial within one year, there is no good progress in the trial inasmuch as only five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 20. The current status report dated 30.01.2025 has been filed wherein this fact has been indicated. Therefore, the total period of incarnation of the present applicant, i.e., more than four years and six months may be considered in the light of the fact that the trial may not be concluded shortly. Besides, almost all fact/relevant witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606 granting bail to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration of that accused, therefore, they were entitled for bail. Para 15 of the case K.A.Najeeb (supra) is being reproduced here-in-below: "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the libertyguaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
13. The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) in para 4 has observed as under: "4. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court." Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 12 SCC 505 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if the material and fact witnesses have been examined, the bail of the accused persons may be considered. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the fact that the present applicant is in jail for more than four years and six months; almost the fact and material witnesses have been examined; while rejecting the first bail application, this Court directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C. but the trial proceedings could not be expedited, therefore, it may be considered as a new ground to consider this second bail application; besides, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial shortly inasmuch as there are total 20 prosecution witnesses and only 05 prosecution witnesses, mainly fact witnesses, have been examined, so considering the aforesaid dictums of Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the present applicant may be released on bail and thus, this second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Preeti be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench