Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18680 of 2017 Applicant :- Ajit Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rupendra Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B, 313, 316, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Aurai, District S.R Nagar (Bhadohi). The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 02.03.2017 passed in Crl. misc. bail application no. 7680 of 2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order dated 2.3.2017.
It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the deceased has committed suicide; much reliance has been placed upon an order passed by another bench of this Court by means of which Sadhna Misra who is mother-in-law of deceased and Lucky @ Rajnish Mishra who is dever of the deceased, have been granted bail, a copy of the order has also been annexed at page no. 78 and 79 of the affidavit. It has been further contended that name of dever has also been mentioned in the dying declaration. It is further contended that the trial has not yet been concluded. It is next contended that the applicant is in jail since 22.11.2016 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
However the learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail with the contention that the applicant is the husband and the death of his wife took place within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances in the house of the husband.
Looking to the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. However considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 22.11.2016, he cannot be further incarcerated into jail for the reason that the trial court is not in a position to conclude the trial expeditiously, which is one of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To incarcerate an accused for an unlimited period at a pre trial stage without his trial being concluded expeditiously as has been mandated under section 309 Cr.P.C. will not be in the interest of justice. However, looking to the averment as made with regard to the illness of the applicant, I consider it appropriate to release the applicant on short term bail/parole for a period starting from 28.2.2018. Accused-applicant shall be released on short term bail/parole on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. two lacs with two solvent sureties each of Rs. two lacs in the like amount to the trial court concerned on the said date.
Both the sureties shall be his family members and/or relatives.
Accused-applicant is directed to surrender before trial court on 05.04.2018.
The bail application shall come up for orders on 12.4.2018.
Meanwhile learned trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial within the intervening period.
In the event trial is concluded interregnum and the applicant is acquitted, applicant need not surrender and in that eventuality, he is directed to file an affidavit along with certified copy of the judgment of the trial Judge before this Court.
It is further being made clear that in case the trial is concluded interregnum and the same ends in a conviction, the applicant shall immediately be taken into custody in accordance with law and notwithstanding anything contained in this order.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Neeraj