Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1852 (ALL)

Satish v. State of U. P.

2010-05-28

ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, S.K.SINGH

body2010
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J.;- ( Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J.) This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Satish. The first bail prayer was rejected on merits by this Court on 29.5.2009. 2. The appellant Satish was convicted alongwith his parents by the learned lower court in S.T. No. 02 of 2005 under sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and also under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. It may be mentioned here that the appellant was acquitted under section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the D.P. Act He was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under Section 304-B I.P.C., 3 years imprisonment under Section 498-A I.P.C. and two years imprisonment under Section 4 of D.P. Act. He was also sentenced to pay various amounts of fine. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and also the order passed by this Court while rejecting the first bail prayer made by the applicant-appellant. 4. From the perusal of the grounds mentioned in the second bail application and the grounds taken by the applicant-appellant while pressing his first bail prayer, it is evident that all the grounds taken in the second bail application have already been taken by him when the first bail prayer was pressed or they were available to him. Therefore, as far as legal aspects of the matter is concerned, there is no force in this second bail application. 5. Another point which has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is that one important aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the court when first bail prayer was pressed nor it was argued before it nor any finding of the court has come in relation to that. 6. Learned counsel drew our attention towards paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the affidavit filed alongwith the criminal appeal. It has been contended by learned counsel that when the deceased had died, there were only 6 family members in the family of the applicant. The eldest one is the father of the applicant, whose age is about 70 years. Second one is the mother of the applicant whose age is about 60 years. She is handicapped and her right foot below the knee has been amputated long back. She is unable to move in a proper manner. The eldest one is the father of the applicant, whose age is about 70 years. Second one is the mother of the applicant whose age is about 60 years. She is handicapped and her right foot below the knee has been amputated long back. She is unable to move in a proper manner. The third family member is the applicant himself and fourth was the deceased. The remaining two family members are Priyanshu and Anshu who are the son and daughter of the deceased. The age of the Priyanshu is about 5 years and that of Anshu is about 2 years. But for the old,infirm and handicapped grand parents of the children, none is there in the family who can look after the two infants. In these circumstances the learned counsel has argued that two minor children of the deceased are not getting due care and proper attention in the absence of their father, who is lodged in jail since last many years. In these circumstances it has been prayed by learned counsel that keeping in view the future of the infants and also on humanitarian grounds, the applicant should be released on bail so that he may look after the infants. 7. The bail application has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, he has not denied the fact that the deceased had two minor children aged about 5 and 2 years at the time of her death. 8. We have gone through the order passed by this Court on 29.5.2009 through which the first bail prayer of the applicant-appellant was rejected. From its perusal it is evident that it was not argued before this Court that the deceased had left behind her two infants. It was also not considered by the court that there was none in the family of the applicant who may look after the two minor children but for their old, aged, infirm and handicapped grand parents. These arguments were not advanced before this court when the first bail prayer was pressed. 9. We have considered all the aspects of the case. 10. The grand mother of the infants is physically handicapped. She is not in a position to move properly as she has lost her foot long ago. In these circumstances, it will definitely be very difficult for her to look after the two infants. 9. We have considered all the aspects of the case. 10. The grand mother of the infants is physically handicapped. She is not in a position to move properly as she has lost her foot long ago. In these circumstances, it will definitely be very difficult for her to look after the two infants. The grand father of the children is now more than 70 years of age and keeping in view his old age, it will not be possible for him to take due care of the children. In these peculiar set of circumstances we find that the poor children, who have lost their mother, should get some care and protection which can only be given to them by their father, the applicant-appellant. If the applicant is released on bail, the infants of the deceased may be looked after properly and their future may not be tarnished. In these circumstances and also on humanitarian grounds and the peculiar condition of the present case, we are of the view that the applicant should be released on bail. 11. Let the applicant-appellant Satish, be released, pending appeal, on bail in S.T. No. 02 of 2005 ( State Vs. Satish and others) on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 12. The trial court is directed to send photostat copies of the bonds to this court, if filed by the applicant before it.