Renu Kanaujiya @ Akhilesh vs State Of U.P.

Heard Sri H.K. Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, Advocate appearing on behalf of father of deceased.

Applicant-Renu Kanaujiya alias Akhilesh has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 01.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 36 of 2015, Case Crime No. 151 of 2014, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120B, 404/34 IPC, Police Station Swaroopnagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

Initially a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") was lodged by one, Piyush Shyam Dasani, husband of deceased that on 27.07.2014 he alongwith his wife were returning at about 11.30 PM. On the way about 7-10 persons travelling on motorcycles stopped his car and he was thrown out of his car by the said persons. One of the assailant took his car alongwith wife and went away. Accordingly FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 147, 392, 364 IPC.

During investigation it was revealed that said Piyush Shyam Dasani, husband of deceased, has not disclosed the correct facts and it was found that he was involved in the said crime. Body of deceased was recovered on 28.07.2014 and during inspection husband of deceased made a confessional statement that he had love affair with one, Manisha and he wanted to marry her, but his wife (now deceased) opposed the same, therefore, with the help of accused persons she was eliminated. Later on other co-accused were also arrested and after investigation charge sheet was filed against ten persons including applicant.

Sri H.K. Yadav, learned counsel for applicant submits that in the presents case bail has been granted to co-accused, Piyush Shyam Dasani (husband of deceased) the main accused, by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. IIIrd Bail Application No. 9519 of 2020 and Ashish Kashyap vide order dated 19.11.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28968 of 2019 and claims parity. Learned counsel further points out that presently in trial the case is at the stage of evidence of defence. He also points out that there are orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of trial. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to anti-mortem injuries which are 14 in number, out of which injuries no. 1 to 6 and 9 were caused by hard and blunt object, whereas injuries no. 7 to 14 were caused by sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel further submits that present applicant, whose name was disclosed in his extra judicial confession, alleged to be one of the contract killers and there was an alleged recovery of a knife on his pointing out. The entire case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence and applicant is in jail since 31.07.2014, therefore, he is entitled for bail.

Learned A.G.A. appearing for State and Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, Advocate appearing for father of deceased, have opposed the bail application. They have relied on the contents of counter affidavit filed on behalf of father of deceased to show that as per forensic report human blood was found on the knife recovered from applicant and the blood was found to be similar to blood of deceased. It has also been pointed out that there are CDR details which is on record which shows that applicant was in continuous touch with other co-accused during relevant time. There is a direct evidence against applicant of causing death of deceased. They submitted that this application for bail be rejected.

Law on bail is well settled that 'Bail is rule and jail is exception'. Bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns the liberty of a person. At the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court while considering an application for bail must not go into deep into merits of the matter such as question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses which can only be tested during the trial. Even ground of parity is one of the above mentioned aspects which are essentially required to be considered while considering application for bail. It is also well settled that grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the Judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner, compassionately and not in whimsical manner. Conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. The Court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate such bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to victim such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused etc. and shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2021, decided on 18.03.2021 in this regard.

In the present case there is a direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 18.11.2020 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 23064 of 2020 whereby the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial as early as possible but not later than three months from today.

As per record presently trial is at the stage of recording of testimony of defence witnesses and presently the evidence of DW-4 is being recorded though it has been pointed out that accused side are intentionally delaying the trial.

Keeping in view that there are serious allegations against applicant; there is evidence on record in the nature of call details; there is a serious allegation whereby applicant alongwith other co-accused has hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and applicant allegedly being one of the alleged contract killer caused death of deceased; presently trial is at the fag end and already there is a direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of trial, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for bail at this stage.

The application for bail is accordingly rejected.

However, it is expected from Trial Court to conclude trial at the earliest as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.