# Vijay Gupta (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 26
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20991 of 2018
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-gupta-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46931
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 304-B, 498-A -
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,1961-Section
3⁄4- application-grant of bail-the entire
family has been roped in, unmindful of
the fact of interse relationship by
attributing a general and omnibus role
to everybody-deceased had a newborn
daughter of 10 days-she found dead on
railway track where she went to attend
the natural call-inquest report was got
prepared
on
the
spot
before
the
father-in law of the applicant and
villagers-FIR lodged after 16 days
without explaining such delay- no
evidence collected during investigation
that husband abetted her or conspired
or intentionally aided her.(Para 1 to 7)

The Bail Application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)03ILR A26
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20991 of
2018

Vijay Gupta ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan, Sri Janardan
Shukla, Sri Neeraj Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 304-B, 498-A -
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,1961-Section
3⁄4- application-grant of bail-the entire
family has been roped in, unmindful of
the fact of interse relationship by
attributing a general and omnibus role
to everybody-deceased had a newborn
daughter of 10 days-she found dead on
railway track where she went to attend
the natural call-inquest report was got
prepared
on
the
spot
before
the
father-in law of the applicant and
villagers-FIR lodged after 16 days
without explaining such delay- no
evidence collected during investigation
that husband abetted her or conspired
or intentionally aided her.(Para 1 to 7)

The Bail Application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Rajasthan Vs Bal Chandra, (1977) 4 SCC
308

2. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs PP, HC
of A.P.,(1978) AIR SC 429
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Pachori, J.)

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh learned
counsel for applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the
material brought on record.

2. The present first bail application
has been filed on behalf of applicant
(husband) with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2017, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-
Gauri Bazar District- Deoria, during
pendency of trial.

3. The submission advanced by
learned counsel for applicant; he is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the present case during the course of
investigation. It has been further contended
that the applicant is husband and not named
in the F.I.R. The charge sheet has been filed
under Sections under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
only against the applicant. The marriage of
the
deceased
was
solemnized
with
applicant on 19.05.2015 and from the
wedlock of the applicant and the deceased,
they have a new born daughter of 10 days
and she is living with applicant in
applicant's house. The incident took place
on 28.04.2017 at 04:00 A.M. and the dead
body of the deceased was found inside the
railway track where she went to attend the
natural call and the train just crushed her
and the first information report has been
lodged on 13.05.2017, i.e., after 16 days.
The inquest report of the dead body of the
deceased was got prepared on the spot at
11:00 A.M. on 28.04.2017 on the basis of
information received at 07:25 A.M. Corpse
of deceased Reena was identified by the
father-in-law as well as villagers. The
3 All. Vijay Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
27
father-in-law of the applicant was also
present at the time of preparation of the
inquest report Hence, he should have
lodged F.I.R. of the alleged incident
promptly on the said date, there appears no
reason to lodge the F.I.R. after such delay
of 16 days and that there is no explanation
of such delay. Further, it is relevant that
railway employee himself reported to the
local police regarding commission of
alleged incident. The post-mortem report
reveals that the deceased have received as
many as eight injuries which are as
follows:-

(i) brain matter right side out of
the skull, right temporal region;

(ii) upper hand deep lacerated
wound bone seen;

(iii)
left
lower
hand
deep
lacerated wound deep the bone;

(iv) brushed injury right chest,

(v) back of side of chest lacerated
wound;

(vi) right lower leg am-bladed all
punja & toes;

(vii) left side knee joint lacerated
wound deep the bone;

(viii) brushed injury back side of
the chest, ribs and chest wall of all ribs
right and left side, cause and manner of
death was hemorrhage and shock, due to
ante-mortem crushed injury.

4. He further submits that the injuries
received by the deceased which clearly
depicted the actual position of the incident
that the injuries caused to the deceased
must have been caused by train accident.
He next submitted that co-accused Ram
Chandra (father-in-law) and Sripati @
Srimati (mother-in-law) have already been
granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 10951 of 2018 vide
order dated 23.3.2018, who are named in
the F.I.R. The applicant is languishing in
jail since 09.10.2017, having no criminal
history nor there is any likelihood of
fleeing from course of justice or tempering
with evidence in case of released on bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail by refuting the
arguments advanced on behalf of learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
regarding
information of the incident as alleged to
have been given by the father-in-law of the
deceased.

6. It is settled position of law that bail
is the rule and committal to jail and
exception in the case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Bal Chandra (1977) 4 SCC 308, the
Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is
a restriction on the personal liberty of the
individual guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution and opined para 2 "The
basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as
bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from
justice or thwarting the course of justice or
creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating
offences
or
intimidating
witnesses and the like, by the petitioner
who seeks enlargement on bail from the
court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive
but only illustrative." and considering the
facts of the case and keeping in mind, the
ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the
case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors
vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429,
larger mandate of Article 21 of the
constitution of India, the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of punishment
which conviction will entail, the character
of the accused-applicant, circumstances
which
are
peculiar
to
the
accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interest of
the public/ State and other circumstances,
but without expressing any opinion on the
merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case
for grant of bail.

7. Let the applicant Vijay Gupta
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 :-

1. The applicant shall not tamper
with
the
prosecution
evidence
by
intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses,
during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate
in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

3. The applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity or commission of
any crime after being released on bail.

4. In case the applicant has been
enlarged on short term bail as per the order
of committee constituted under the orders
of Hon'ble Supreme Court his/her bail shall
be effective after the period of short-term
bail comes to an end.

5. The applicant shall be enlarged
on bail on execution of personal bond
without sureties till normal functioning of
the courts is restored. The accused will
furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the
court below within a month after normal
functioning of the courts are restored.

8. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

9. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

10. The concerned Court /Authority
/Official shall verify the authenticity of
such computerized copy of the order from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification.
----------
(2021)03ILR A28
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21722 of
2020

Rakesh Kumar Rathore
 ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
Union of India ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, Sri Deelip Kumar,
Sri Pranshu Dwivedi, Sri Manish Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Narendra Deo Rai, Sri Krishna Agarawal

A. Criminal Law - Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances,Act,1985-Section
8/22,30
-application-rejection-challenge
to-refusing default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C.-
Narcotics drugs were recovered from the
godown of the applicant-applicant had no
licence for godown nor he had any bill of
recovered
drugs-prosecution
filed
an
application u/s 36A(4) of the Act, seeking
extension
of
time
for
investigationapplication for default bail rejected by
giving
further
4
months
time
to
investigate-the
period
of
180
days
prescribed u/s 36A(4) of the Act for
completing the investigation and filing