Back
2009 Supreme(All) 3031
2009 (67) ACC 190
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
Sanjay – Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15803 of 2008
Decided on : 1.9.2009
K.K. Tiwari, Indra Mani Tripathi for the Petitioner
Govt. Advocate for the Respondent
The mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be a ground for bail if the accused has committed the offense.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Murder Allegation - The court rejected the bail application of the accused, holding that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to show that the accused had set the deceased on fire after pouring kerosene oil by his father. The court emphasized that the mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be a ground for bail if the accused has committed the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was alleged to have set the deceased on fire after borrowing money from the deceased's mother and becoming angry when she demanded the money. The accused had been in jail since October 2006.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing the presence of prima facie evidence showing the accused's involvement in the heinous crime and the lack of merit in the grounds presented for bail.
Issues: The main issues were the strength of the allegations in the FIR, the presence of the complainant at the time of the incident, and the length of incarceration as grounds for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be a ground for bail if the accused has committed the offense, and that parity cannot be the sole ground for bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months, with the SSP Ghaziabad being directed to ensure the timely production of witnesses.
Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
Heard Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, Advocate, appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State.
2. The allegations made in the FIR lodged on 05.10.2006 by Arun, son of Ram Naresh Giri at P.S. Pilkhuwa, district Ghaziabad at case crime no. 254 of 2006, under section 302, 506 IPC, in brief, are that the accused Sanjay had borrowed Rs. 25,00/- from Mithilesh, mother of the complainant and when she demanded that money on 04.10.2006, he became angry. It is also alleged that on next day, i.e. 5.10.2006 at about 4.00 P.M., Sanjay and his father Om Prakash set Smt. Mithlesh on fire, due to which she died.
3. The main submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that motive as alleged in the FIR is very weak and for the sake of Rs. 25,00/- only, no person would commit the murder of innocent lady.
4. Next submission made by learned counsel is that if the applicant was having country made pistol, then he could commit the murder of deceased by shooting her.
5. Drawing my attention towards the site plan paper no. 21, it is submitted by learned counsel that the incident is said to have been witnessed by the complainant from a distance of 50 mts. only, but he did not make any effort to save his mother, and hence on this ground the presence of the complainant at the time of incident is doubtful.
6. Further submission made by learned counsel is that applicant is resident of other village and story of committing the murder of deceased is false and concocted. For this submission attention of the Court has been drawn towards statement of Ram Naresh Giri, husband of the deceased also , which has been filed with listing application dated 05.05.2009.
7. It is also submitted that incident of burning the deceased is said to have occurred below the chhappar, but the chhappar was not burnt, which also makes the story doubtful.
8. It is also submitted that co-accused Om Prakash has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3540 of 2007 and hence on this ground of the principle of parity, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail, because the role of pouring kerosene oil was assigned to the co-accused Om prakash, who has been enlarged on bail.
9. It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since October, 2006 and hence on the basis of long incarceration in jail, he is entitled to be released on bail, as due to delay in trial, his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under article 21 of the constitution is being violated.
10. The bail application has been opposed by AGA contending that specific role of setting the deceased on fire has been attributed to the applicant and hence in this heinous crime, he should not be released on bail.
11. On the point of granting bail on this ground of parity, it is submitted by learned AGA that parity can not be the sole ground for bail.
12. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record. There is sufficient prima facie evidence to show that the applicant Sanjay had set the deceased on fire after pouring kerosene oil by his father. The post-mortem report (annexure 2) shows that the deceased had died due to burn injuries. Therefore having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence available in the case diary, but without expressing any opinion about merit of the case, in this heinous crime of taking the life of an innocent lady without any lawful excuse, the applicant does not deserve bail.
13. I entirely agree with the contention of learned AGA that parity cannot be the sole ground for bail. Reliance can be placed on Shahnawaz @ Shanu Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (66) ACC 189.
14. In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant cannot be released on bail. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008(68) ACC
