The court may grant bail based on the nature of evidence, period of detention, unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial, and absence of convincing material for tampering with evidence.

Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

2. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that all the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and frivolous and 10 years have already elapsed since the marriage of the applicant and his wife. Further submission is that actually there was a quarrel that took place in between the applicant and his wife as the applicant had expressed objections on the talks which the deceased-wife used to have with one Munai and it was on this issue that the deceased in a fit of rage, consumed the dye which has resulted in her death. It has also submitted that applicant took all the necessary steps to save the life of his wife and rushed her to hospital without loosing time. Initially, she was taken to District Hospital, Fatehpur but she was referred thereafter and as such she was taken to Rahi Medical Centre (Pvt.) Ltd., Kanpur. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the annexure no. 4 indicating the fact that when the deceased was taken to the aforesaid hospital for treatment, condition of the deceased was very serious. She was treated under Dr. Tripti Sethiya and was operated upon also on her neck as she was having extreme breathing difficulty because of consumption of dye. It was also submitted that the post mortem report of the deceased also indicates that there was absolutely no other injury on the body of the deceased which may indicate any violence committed on her and the allegations made by the first informant that some sharp edged weapon was used against her also stand belied by the findings of the post mortem report which indicates that the wound found on the neck was the result of the operation performed on the deceased and was not caused by any weapon of attack. It was also pointed that at the time of inquest report the first informant as well as his brother-in-law Raj Kumar both were present along with the applicant and all of them were the witnesses of the inquest proceedings which took place on 7.8.2015. Submission is that even during the course of inquest proceeding no allegation against the applicant was brought forth. Contention is that almost 12 days thereafter, on 21.8.2015 an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was moved after considerable delay having no very plausible explanation for the same. Further submission is that had there been any truth in the allegations made against the applicant, the first informant report ought to have been lodged much earlier. It has also been emphasized that had there been any intention of the applicant to cause death of the victim, there was no reason for him to rush to the hospital and to give her medical succour in order to save her life. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 16.5.2016 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

4. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. Let the applicant- Din