# Anand Dubey v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1346 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-20 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-44202 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Dowry death case - Considerations for grant of bail - Delay in FIR and dying declaration - Bail application in offences under Ss. 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Ss. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - FIR lodged after considerable delay of nearly three months from incident - Dying declaration of deceased indicated accidental burn injuries and did not implicate accused - Conduct of accused in informing parental side and taking deceased for treatment noted - Held, delay in FIR coupled with exculpatory dying declaration and surrounding circumstances create grounds for grant of bail. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Evaluation of circumstances - Prima facie satisfaction - At bail stage, final adjudication of guilt not required - Court to consider nature of evidence, period of detention, likelihood of early conclusion of trial and possibility of tampering with evidence - Absence of convincing material indicating likelihood of tampering and prolonged custody weighed in favour of applicant. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Conditions - Safeguards - Bail granted subject to conditions ensuring presence of accused and non-interference with evidence - Trial court empowered to cancel bail upon breach of conditions. In Result: Bail granted subject to conditions. ## Text 1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1346 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 40772 Of 2015 Anand Dubey ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Manish Tiwary, Anurag Shukla, Ashwini Kumar Awasthi Counsel for the Respondent: G.A., Irfan U Huda Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Dowry death case - Considerations for grant of bail - Delay in FIR and dying declaration - Bail application in offences under Ss. 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Ss. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - FIR lodged after considerable delay of nearly three months from incident - Dying declaration of deceased indicated accidental burn injuries and did not implicate accused - Conduct of accused in informing parental side and taking deceased for treatment noted - Held, delay in FIR coupled with exculpatory dying declaration and surrounding circumstances create grounds for grant of bail. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Evaluation of circumstances - Prima facie satisfaction - At bail stage, final adjudication of guilt not required - Court to consider nature of evidence, period of detention, likelihood of early conclusion of trial and possibility of tampering with evidence - Absence of convincing material indicating likelihood of tampering and prolonged custody weighed in favour of applicant. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Conditions - Safeguards - Bail granted subject to conditions ensuring presence of accused and non-interference with evidence - Trial court empowered to cancel bail upon breach of conditions. In Result: Bail granted subject to conditions. (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Counter affidavit filed by Sri Irfan U. Huda, learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Irfan U. Huda, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 8 All. Anand Dubey Vs State Of U.P. 1347 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the incident is said to have taken place on 17.11.2014 but the FIR of the case has been lodged on 25.2.2015 on the basis of an application dated 13.2.2015. It has been further pointed out that according to the version of the FIR itself, the information about the deceased having caught fire was communicated to the parents of the deceased by the applicant's side and it is not a case where the incident of burning was concealed from the parents. It has been further pointed out that this is the admitted case of the prosecution, and the first informant has also admitted this fact, that on getting the information the first informant had reached the matrimonial home of the deceased and had gone to the hospital where she had been admitted by that time and had found the deceased being treated. Further submission is that during the period when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, the dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded. The attention of the Court was drawn to the dying declaration of the deceased, which is Annexure-3 to the bail application, according to which, the version of the incident as narrated by the deceased was that on 16.11.2014 at about 7.00-8.00 p.m., while she was in the kitchen she accidentally caught fire. No allegation was made by the deceased against applicant or anyone else of his family. It was also stated by the deceased that after she caught fire her husband rushed to douse the fire and in that process he also received burn injuries. In this regard, the attention of the Court has been drawn towards Annexure-4 of the bail application, which is in the form of several medical papers regarding the treatment of burn injuries which were received by the applicant. Further submission of counsel is that subsequently in order to give better treatment she was being taken to Lucknow but she succumbed in the way to the injuries and died. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that had there been any truth in the allegation made against the applicant then it is wholly incomprehensible as to how and under what circumstances, the First Information Report was not lodged against the applicant earlier by the first informant, who was very much present there even before the deceased died. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the applicant on the extra-ordinary delay in lodging the FIR. Submission is that the yawning gap between the occurrence and the lodging of the FIR is by itself sufficient to demonstrate that the version given in the FIR is nothing but an out-come of confabulation, deliberation and afterthought which by itself denudes the prosecution version from all its credibility. Further submission is that had there been any ill-intention on the part of the applicant and had he had any guilty conscience then there was no question for him to communicate the information of incident to the parents of the deceased and thereby give the opportunity to the first informant to come and talk to his daughter about the incident. It is further submitted that as the deceased had nothing to speak against the applicant, the applicant also had no reason to hide the incident from her parents. In fact as the first informant also had nothing to report against the applicant, he did not lodge any FIR for almost three months. For pure emotional reasons,even the post mortem of deceased was not got done because as a mark of respect it was a joint decision of first informant and applicant's family not to subject the deceased to any further mutilation. It was only long after the occurrence that present FIR was lodged with all sorts of mendacious allegations. The conduct of the accused giving immediate information to the parents is by itself a strong circumstance to indicate his innocence and bonafides. 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.7.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 4. Sri Irfan U. Huda, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the incident had taken place initially in the evening of 16.11.2014 but the medical papers indicate that the deceased was admitted to the hospital on the next day, which indicates that medical succour was not provided in time to the deceased. It has been further submitted that the deceased was not discharged from the hospital with the consent or referral of the Doctor but yet she was taken away from the hospital and she died on the way to Lucknow and such an act of accused was not proper and in turn contributed to the death of the deceased. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that initially the burns received by the husband were said to have been 15% but the subsequent medical papers of the hospital at Lucknow where the applicant was treated would indicate that his burns have been shown to be about 40%. Learned counsel for the complainant has tried to argue that it indicates that there is deliberate attempt on the part of the applicant to exaggerate his own injuries and thereby raise a false defence plea in his favour. 5. Perused the record. 6. The final verdict about the guilt or innocence of accused can be arrived at only through a proper trial but 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. 7. Let the applicant Anand Dubey involved in Case Crime No. 142 of 2015 u/ss 498A, 304B,201 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj District Allahabad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ----------- 8 All. Raju Vs State Of U.P. 1349 (2016) 8 ILRA 1349 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 41702 Of 2015 Raju ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Madan Mohan Yaduvanshi Counsel for the Respondent: G.A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Murder case - Appreciation of prima facie evidence - Rejection of bail - Bail application in offences under S. 302 IPC and S. 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act - Prosecution case supported by ocular version of informant and corroborated by medical evidence indicating multiple injuries including firearm and sharp-edged weapon injuries - Held, presence of strong prima facie evidence and gravity of offence disentitle applicant from grant of bail. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Conduct of witness - Non-interference by eyewitness - Contention that eyewitness did not attempt to save deceased - Held, conduct of witness varies with circumstances and individual disposition - Where assailants were armed with deadly weapons and actively using them, failure of witness to intervene cannot by itself discredit prosecution version. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail - Scope of consideration - Trial stage - Detailed appreciation of evidence to be undertaken at trial - At bail stage, existence of prima facie case sufficient - Court should refrain from exhaustive evaluation of evidence. In Result: Bail application rejected with direction to trial court to expedite proceedings. (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA is taken on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 435 of 2014 u/s 302 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Harduaganj District Aligarh. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 4. Perused the record.