# Virendra Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 4
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2046 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-48123
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate

A. Bail - The Court on considering the facts of
the case granted bail to the applicant subject to
the conditions laid imposed on him. (Para 13)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. List on 24.03.2022.

22. In the meanwhile, learned A.G.A
may file counter affidavit.

23. The applicant, if so advised, may
file rejoinder affidavit within one week
thereafter.
----------
(2022)02ILR A4
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2046 of 2021

Virendra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anoop
Vajpayee,
Atul
Kumar
Yadav,
Devendra Pratap, Manoj Kumar Misra,
Rajat Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

A. Bail - The Court on considering the facts of
the case granted bail to the applicant subject to
the conditions laid imposed on him. (Para 13)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prahlad Singh hati Vs NCT, Delhi & anr. 2001
4 SCC 280 (followed)

2. Dataram Singh Vs State of U.P. & ors. (2018)
3 SCC 22 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. Called on. Learned counsel Sri
Rajat Pratap Singh, Advocate appeared
physically in hearing of the Crl. Misc. Bail
Application No. 2046 of 2021. Learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
Sri
Ravish Chandra Mishra, Advocate for and
on behalf of the State is also present.

2. The present bail application is
moved on behalf of the accused-applicantVirendra Singh, involved in Case Crime
No. 397 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC,
registered at Police Station Behta Gokul,
District Hardoi.

3. The occasion to present the bail
application before this Court has arisen on
rejection of first bail plea before the Ist
Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi on
18.12.2020.

4. Counter and rejoinder affidavit in
the matter have duly been exchanged
between the contesting parties. The case is
ripe for hearing.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the First Information
Report, statements on record and other
materials as well as counter affidavit filed
by the learned AGA.

6. Briefly stating the case emerging
from the First Information Report lodged
by Smt. Rajrani w/o late Jaswant Singh
with regard to her daughter Sanju Devi
married to accused-applicant Virendra that
on
21.10.2020
the
complainant
on
information of unnatural death of her
daughter when went to the house of in-laws
of the deceased, she found her daughter
hanging from ceiling.
2 All. Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
5

7. Learned counsel submits that the
accused-applicant is languishing in jail
since 15.11.2020 for no fault of him. The
present accused-applicant has no role and
involvement in the aforesaid unnatural
death of his wife as complained of by her
mother-in-law either by instigation and
abatement to commit suicide or otherwise.
In para 10 and 11 of the bail application he
has
submitted
the
explanation
for
committing suicide by the deceased, his
wife
Sanju
Devi
which
is
quoted
hereunder:

"10. That by the passage of time,
when the husband and in-laws of Arti Devi
came to know about the aforesaid incident
then they started extending threat to desert
Arti Devi, giving divorce to her.

11. That due to the aforesaid
reason, the deceased was very much
frustrated
and
in
the
night
of
20/21.10.2020, when the frustration of the
deceased reached at its peak then she
committed suicide by hanging in hut,
situated outside the house of applicant."

8. The aforesaid explanation finding
place in para 10 and 11 of the affidavit in
support of the bail application finds
corroboration from the postmortem report
on record wherein there is only ligature
mark is reported in the ante-mortem injury
seen on the body of the deceased. There is
no other external injury showing any
cruelty or otherwise. Further corroboration
of the argument of the learned counsel that
the wife of accused-applicant Sanju Devi
committed suicide by reason of her
daughter's bad luck and threats having been
given by her in-laws when they came to
knowledge about the fact of her elopement
with
some
other
person,
namely,
Pushpendra Rathore, earlier to marriage.
An FIR to this effect was also lodged by
the deceased against Pushpendra Rathore
and other co-accused in Case Crime No.
317 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 IPC
and Sections 7/8 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After
recovering by the police from the accused
Pushpendra Rathore, the girl was handed
over to the complainant, the deceased in the
present case who got her married but her
in-laws when came to know about her
earlier case, they became rude to the
daughter of the deceased. Due to this
situation, under the deep sympathy and
pathetic, the wife of the present accusedapplicant and mother of the daughter in hot
water caused the suicide by her on
21.10.2020.

9. Learned AGA from the counter
affidavit and other materials on record
could not show the fact of active instigation
for abatement on the part of the present
accused-applicant to his wife, the deceased,
Sanju Devi or any cruelty on his part under
compulsion
of
which
the
deceased
committed suicide.

10. The argument of learned AGA that
the instance of cruelty and instigation as
well as the abatement by the present
accused-applicant to her wife to commit
suicide coming from the statement of the
brother of the deceased and other native
villagers is not able to be considered at this
stage because they being not member of the
family and inmates of the house cannot see
directly the incident of instigation as
alleged
in
their
statements
or
such
statements need corroboration from some
material evidences proved in the course
trial.

11. The case of present accusedapplicant is distinguished from that of coaccused Rahul. The present accused-
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant deserves to be granted bail in
view of the parameters laid by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh
Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and another - (2001
4 SCC 280 ), which are being quoted
hereunder:-

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail
has to be exercised on the basis of wellsettled principles having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an
arbitrary manner. While granting the bail,
the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail,
the
character,
behaviour,
means
and
standing of the accused, circumstances
which
are
peculiar
to
the
accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public or State and similar other
considerations. It has also to be kept in
mind that for the purposes of granting the
bail the legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" instead
of "the evidence" which means the court
dealing with the grant of bail can only
satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that
the prosecution will be able to produce
prima facie evidence in support of the
charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to
have the evidence establishing the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

12. Keeping into mind the valuable
right
of
personal
liberty
and
the
fundamental principle not to disbelieve a
person to be innocent unless held guilty and
if he is not arraigned with the charge of an
offence for which the law has put on him a
reverse burden of proving his innocence as,
held in the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and Others reported in
[(2018) 3 SCC 22], I find force in the
submission of learned counsel for the
accused-applicant to enlarge him on bail.

13. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, perusing the
record and also considering the nature of
allegations, arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and without
commenting anything on merit of the case,
I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

14. Let applicant-Virendra Singh be
released on bail in Case Crime No. 397 of
2020, under Section 306 IPC, registered at
Police
Station
Behta
Gokul,
District
Hardoi, on his furnishing a personal bond
worth Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds by
two different sureties whose social status
and economic capacity as to the surety will
be
subject
to
the
satisfaction
and
verification of the court concerned, subject
to following additional conditions which
are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses
the liberty of bail during trial and in order
2 All. Indrapal Vs. State of U.P.
7
to secure his presence, proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
applicant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.
----------
(2022)02ILR A7
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3069 of 2021

Indrapal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amar Nath Dubey, Sanjay Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A. Bail - The Court enlarged the applicant on
bail while keeping in mind the fundamental
principle is not to disbelieve a person to be
innocent unless held guilty and if he is not
arraigned with the charge of an offence for
which the law has put on him a reverse burden
of proving his innocence. (Para 11)
Bail Application Allowed. (E-10)
List of Cases cited:

1. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi & anr. 2001
4 SCC 280

2. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2018) 3
SCC 22
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant Sri Amar Nath Dubey, Advocate
and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri
Raveesh Chandra Mishra through video
conferencing and perused the record.

3. The present bail application is filed
on behalf of the accused-applicant involved
in Case Crime No.296 of of 2020 under
Sections 302, 307, 324, 109, 120-B, 34
I.P.C., Police Station - Raniganj, District-
Pratapgarh.

4. The occasion of present bail
application arisen on rejection of bail plea
of applicant by learned court of Sessions
Judge,
Pratapgarh
vide
order
dated
12.1.2021.

5. According to the prosecution story
a First Information Report lodged by a
constable of Police Station Raniganj,
Pratapgarh with regard to an incident taken
place on 13.6.2020 when a police party
containing Constable Shubham Kharwar
and Head Constable Satish Mishra brought
the accused-applicant in their custody in
the police station and said the accused
applicant Indrapal to sit there and wait for
further action. Meanwhile, another police
party brought the deceased Mithailal Pal
and his opponents in their custody and they
also made the accused persons in their
custody to sit there for further action. It is