Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2491 (ALL)

BHAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-07-07

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
JUDGMENT VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.-Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Advocate appearing for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, Counsel for the Complainant and AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The applicant Bhagat Singh is the father-in-law of deceased Smt. Dayawati, whose murder has been committed within seven years of her marriage in the house of the applicant. 3. An FIR was lodged on 23.6.2008 by Sri Bachchu Singh, maternal uncle of the deceased at. P.S. Sadar Bazar, Mathura, where a case under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act was registered against Sanju (husband), Bhagat Singh (applicant herein) and Smt. Laxmi Devi (mother-in-law). The allegations made in the FIR are that the accused persons were causing harassment of deceased Dayawati making demand of dowry and they had committed her murder on 23.4.2008 by shooting her. 4. The main submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is that specific role of committing murder of deceased has been assigned to co-accused San jay in the statement of his wife Darshana, who has been examined as P.W. 2 in S.T. No. 846 of 2008 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mathura and hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on this ground, because he did not commit the murder of deceased. 5. Next submission made by learned Counsel is that the co-accused Smt. Laxmi Devi (mother-in-law) has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.3.2008 passed in bail application No. 34124 of 2008 and hence, on the principle of parity, the applicant also deserves bail. 6. It is also submitted by learned Counsel that at the time of incident of murder of deceased, the applicant was busy in getting the sale deed executed in Sub-Registrar Office and he was not present in his house. It is also submitted that at the most offence under section 498-A IPC would be made out against the applicant and he is not liable for the murder of deceased, because her murder was committed by Sanjay. 7. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 29.6.2008 and hence on the basis of long incarceration in jail, he is entitled for bail, because due to delay in trial his Fundamental Right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being infringed. 8. 7. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 29.6.2008 and hence on the basis of long incarceration in jail, he is entitled for bail, because due to delay in trial his Fundamental Right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being infringed. 8. Bail has been opposed by learned AGA as well as Counsel for the complainant on the ground that all the accused persons were causing harassment of the deceased and her murder has been committed within seven years of marriage. 9. So far as principle of parity is concerned, in my opinion, parity is not the sole ground for bail. For this submission, I may refer the order dated 29.6.2009 passed by me in Cril. Misc. Bail Application No. 9138 of 2008 (Shyam Lal v. State of U.P.), in which have held that on granting bail by one Bench to an accused, another Bench is not bound to grant bail to similarly placed accused on the principle of parity. Moreover, in present case, role of the applicant is distinguishable from his wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi, who has boon released on bail. Hence the applicant cannot be granted .bail on the principle of parity. 10. Smt. Darshana has been examined in the Trial Court. She is also the daughter-in-law of applicant and wife of co-accused Sanjay. She is eye-witness of the incident of murder of her sister Smt. Dayawevi. I have carefully gone through the statement made by her in aforesaid Session Trial. From her statement; this fact is borne out that all the accused persons were causing harassment to the deceased making demand of dowry. It has come in the statement of Smt. Darshana that licenced gun was given by the applicant Bhagat Singh to his son co-accused Sanjay, who committed murder of the deceased. Therefore, having regard to all these facts, without expressing any opinion on merit, the applicant in this heinous anti-social crime does not deserve bail. 11. In my considered opinion, on the basis of long incarceration in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others/ in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be per-se illegal. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India and others/ 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. 12. Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant Bhagat Singh is hereby rejected. 13. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months applying the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the Trial Court concerned for necessary action. Bail Rajected.