# Deshraj v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 12 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-21 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deshraj-v-state-of-u-p-43985 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES would also indicate the multiple nature of the injuries on his body displaying the extreme brutality or cruelty committed upon him. It was also pointed out that the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased would also indicate that his fingers and another parts were badly mutilated and chopped off. Contention is that the sacrifice of an innocent child speaks about the depravity of the accused persons, who have indulged into the aforesaid savage murder and that too which seems to have been perpetuated because of some weird orthodox superstitious values having no rational basis or vindication. Submission is that the brutality displayed in the commission of crime is extreme and looking to the gravity of the offence, no liberal view in the matter is called for. 7. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. 8. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 9. However, in case the trial of the case has already started, it is expected that the trial court shall make every sincere endeavour to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. It goes without saying that if the witnesses are not presenting themselves before the court, the court must adopt all necessary measures available under law including the coercive measures to procure their attendance in the court in order to expedite the conclusion of the trial at the earliest. 10. 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. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 24097 Of 2016 Deshraj ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicant: Sudhir Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A. 7 All. Deshraj Vs State Of U.P. 13 Held The Court considered: The delay of about 11⁄2 months in lodging the FIR (incident dated 01.05.2015; application to SSP dated 15.06.2015). The presence of the first informant during inquest proceedings without raising allegations at that stage. The applicant's custody since 31.01.2016. Absence of criminal antecedents. Unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial. No convincing material indicating possibility of tampering with evidence. Allegations under Sections 498A and 306 IPC were noted, but at the stage of bail, the Court found no sufficient ground to continue detention. The Court observed that: The delay in FIR is a relevant factor at bail stage. Evidence collected did not prima facie conclusively establish instigation leading to suicide. The applicant assured cooperation with trial. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant was found entitled to bail. Bail was granted subject to conditions: No tampering with prosecution evidence. Mandatory personal appearance on each date unless exempted by court. Breach of conditions would entail cancellation of bail. Observations in the order were confined strictly to bail and shall not affect the merits of the trial. CASE LAW CITED None (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the incident is said to have taken place on 01.5.2015 and the parents of the deceased were duly informed by applicant and they had also arrived at the place of occurrence. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to inquest proceedings which indicate that the first informant himself was one of the witnesses of the inquest proceedings. Apart from him, the other co-villagers of the first informant were also the witnesses of inquest. Emphasis has been laid by the counsel on the fact that despite the presence of the first informant during inquest proceedings no complaint was made against the applicant and the F.I.R. was lodged on an application given to S.S.P. which is dated 15.6.2015. Submission is that this inordinate delay in moving an application to lodge the F.I.R. has not been adequately explained by the prosecution. Further submission is that ten years had already passed after marriage and all the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and ill-treating the deceased are fake and false. It is further submitted that if there was any truth in the allegations of committing cruelty upon the deceased then there is absolutely no reason as to why the first informant would take so much time in lodging the F.I.R. against the applicant. Contention is that this inordinate and unexplained delay 14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES is a circumstance which speaks in volumes about the fake nature of the allegations. Further contention is that actually despite the period of ten years that passed after marriage the deceased had not conceived and used to feel frustrated for the same reason and in fact had committed suicide because of the same background. It is further submitted that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer also falls short of showing or proving that the commission of suicide was the direct result of any instigation on the part of the applicant. 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 31.01.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It is also pointed out that the applicant is not having criminal antecedents. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. 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. 6. Let the applicant-Deshraj, involved in S.T. No.90 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.1507 of 2015, u/s 498A, 306 I.P.C., P.S.-Rauja, District-Shahjahanpur 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 7 All. Chanara @ Chandrawati Vs State Of U.P. 15 ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 28788 Of 2015 Chanara @ Chandrawati ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicant: R.P.S. Chauhan,Birendra Kaushik,Ram Pravesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate Held The deceased died due to ante-mortem hanging, as per post-mortem report, indicating suicide. No external injuries were found except the ligature mark, suggesting absence of physical violence prior to death. The applicant (mother-in-law) was living separately, while the deceased resided with her husband separately. Allegations in the FIR regarding murder were prima facie contradicted by medical evidence confirming suicide. No tangible material was shown to establish abetment or instigation by the applicant under Section 306 IPC. The applicant is an elderly woman and has been in custody since 21.05.2015 (more than one year at the time of consideration). There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and no material suggesting that the applicant would tamper with evidence. Considering: Nature of allegations Medical evidence Period of detention Absence of criminal antecedents Unlikelihood of tampering The Court found it a fit case for grant of bail. Bail granted subject to conditions: No tampering with prosecution evidence. Mandatory personal appearance on each date unless exempted. Breach of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail. Observations are confined to the bail stage and shall not affect the merits of trial.