# (In Jail) v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 737 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-09-01 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15803 of 2008 - **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-41436 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-439Bail Application offence under Section 302, 506 IPC applicant set fire after pouring Kerosene oil by his father-post mortum report shows burn injurieskeeping in view of evidence and material available in case diary-taking life of innocent lady-not deserves for bail-claim of parity or long period of jail of prisoner-not violative of Art. 21. Held: Para 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. Case law discussed: 2009 (66) ACC 189, 2008(68) ACC 115. ## Text 3 All] Sanjay V. State of U.P. 737 that permission to the police officer to investigate a non-cognizable case can be granted on the basis of the report of police officer only. In my opinion, such permission can be granted by the Magistrate on the basis of the application moved by the complainant or any other aggrieved person. In this context reliance can be placed on Kunwar Singh vs. State of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC 331, in which it is held by this Court that complainant/ third party also can move application before the magistrate for order to direct investigation in NCR case. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Kunwar Singh vs. State (supra), the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the learned magistrate concerned as well as the impugned order dated 03.06.2009 passed by learned lower revisional court do not require any interference by this Court, as there is no illegality in both these orders. 8. Consequently, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15803 of 2008 Sanjay ...Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri K.K. Tiwari Sri Indra Mani Tripathi Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-439Bail Application offence under Section 302, 506 IPC applicant set fire after pouring Kerosene oil by his father-post mortum report shows burn injurieskeeping in view of evidence and material available in case diary-taking life of innocent lady-not deserves for bail-claim of parity or long period of jail of prisoner-not violative of Art. 21. Held: Para 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. Case law discussed: 2009 (66) ACC 189, 2008(68) ACC 115. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.) 1. 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 738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 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 coaccused 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 3 All] Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur V. Shri Mohd. Farooq 739 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 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. 16. The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused within a period of six months making sincere efforts and applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. 17. S.S.P. Ghaziabad is also directed to depute special messenger to procure the attendance of the witnesses after obtaining their summons from the court concerned and it must be ensured that all the witnesses are produced in the session trial arising out of aforesaid case without causing any delay. 18. The office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned and S.S.P. Ghaziabad for necessary action. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE C.K. PRASAD,C. J. THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Income Tax Appeal No. 78 of 2002 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur ...Appellant Versus Shri Mohd. Farooq ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Shambhu Chopra Sri Ashok Kumar Sri Ashok Trivedi Sri Ashok Trivedi Sri Krishna Agrawal Sri R.P. Kapoor Sri R.P. Agrawal Sri V.K. Dwivedi Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V.B. Upadhyay Sri Hanuman Upadhyay Income Tax Act-1961-Section 260 A(2)- Tax Appeal-Beyond 120 days-question as to whether the provisions of limitation contained in section 4 to 24 as provided under Section 29(2) of limitation Act 1963 are applicable of considering the principle of natural justice can be entertained and decided on merit-held-it has to be presented in accordance with procedure and within the time prescribed by statute-principle of natural justice not alienated-appeal beyond that liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.