Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 22215
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SONU – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BAIL/11960/2022
Undertrials cannot be indefinitely detained pending trial, and bail should be granted when a timely trial is not possible and the accused has suffered significant incarceration.
Headnote:
BAIL - DOWRY DEATH - DELAY IN TRIAL - [Applicant granted bail considering the delay in trial and overcrowding in jails, despite allegations of causing dowry death of his wife.]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested and charged with dowry death of his wife under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. He filed a bail application, arguing that he was falsely implicated, the deceased committed suicide due to a dispute with her family, and he had been in jail since 2019 with the trial still pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the delay in trial, the overcrowding in jails, and the applicant's lack of criminal history. It also considered the Supreme Court's judgment in K.A. Najeeb, which emphasized the right to a speedy trial and the need to avoid indefinite detention of undertrials.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the delay in trial and overcrowding in jails. 2. Whether the applicant's alleged involvement in the dowry death of his wife should be considered at the pre-trial stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant should be granted bail considering the delay in trial, the overcrowding in jails, and the lack of evidence against him at the pre-trial stage. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in K.A. Najeeb, which emphasized the right to a speedy trial and the need to avoid indefinite detention of undertrials.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on the condition that he would not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, and would appear before the trial court on each date fixed.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11960
of 2022
Applicant :- Sonu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned
AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant, Sonu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case
Crime No. 117 of 2019 arising out of session trial No. 71 of
2019, under Sections- 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station- Purandarpur, District-
Maharajganj, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against the applicant of causing dowry death
of his wife.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
deceased committed suicide by way of burning because of
dispute with the family members of her matrimonial home. In
the statement of P.W. 1, recorded before the trial Court, she has
admitted that at the time of the incident, the applicant was at
Mumbai, where he does the work of tailoring. He came after
information of the death of the deceased. The deceased
committed suicide because of her obstinate nature. The
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no
criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since
02.06.2019. Seven prosecution witnesses have been examined
but the trial has not been concluded till date.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of
the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant
cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not
deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on
bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse
the liberty of bail.
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due
to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re:
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme
Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being
reproduced herein below as follows :-
"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the
liberty guaranteed 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."
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above,
finding force in the submissions made by the counsel for the
applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.
(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and
considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above
their capacity by under trials and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in
the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten
the
