1. Appeal against denial of bail for offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 729
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Nitish Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1384 of 2023, SLP (Criminal) No. 3771 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Important Points
The court granted bail to the appellant accused of dowry death and harassment, citing the prolonged period of custody (nearly two years and four months) and the slow progress of the trial, as only two out of twenty-six prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Bail - Offences under Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act - IPC 498A, 304B; Dowry Prohibition Act 3, 4 Summary:
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was denied bail in a case involving offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant had been in custody for nearly two years four months, with the trial at an early stage.Finding of the Court:
The court found that considering the stage of the case and the time spent in custody, the appellant was entitled to be released on bail.Issues:
Whether the appellant should be granted bail despite facing serious charges related to dowry offences.Ratio Decidendi:
The court considered the length of custody, stage of trial, and proposed witnesses before deciding to grant bail.Final Decision:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and releasing the appellant on bail subject to conditions stipulated by the Trial Court.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anupam Mishra, Jenis V. Francis, Harikumar V.
For the Respondents: Anuvrat Sharma, Alka Singh.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anupam Mishra, Jenis V. Francis, Harikumar V.
For the Respondents: Anuvrat Sharma, Alka Singh.
Table of Contents
2. The court found the appellant entitled to bail considering the length of custody and the slow progress of the trial. (Para 4 )
3. Prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress are material considerations for granting bail to an accused. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, and appellant granted bail subject to conditions stipulated by the Trial Court. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Does the duration of custody and the pace of trial affect bail eligibility?
Yes, the court may grant bail if the accused has been in custody for a significant period and the trial is progressing slowly, as evidenced by the small number of witnesses examined relative to the total proposed. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has been denied bail in a case which involves offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-State. It is not in dispute that the appellant has been in custody for nearly two years four months. The case is at the stage of trial. Two witnesses have been examined. It is not in dispute that twenty six witnesses are proposed to be examined by the prosecution.
4. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to such conditions as may be stipulated by the Trial Court.
6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
