Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43883 of 2017 Applicant :- Akhilesh Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai,Virendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Counter affidavit filed today in the Court on behalf of State is taken on record.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Akhilesh Maurya in connection with Case Crime No. 960 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur.
Heard Ms. Katyani, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.A.S. Abidi, learned AGA along with Sri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been implicated in the instant crime falsely only on the account of the fact that he is the husband; that the deceased immediately before the occurrence was living with her parents and was found hanging from a tree close to her parents house as asserted in paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit; that there is no evidence of demand of dowry or cruelty in connection with dowry demand immediately preceding the occurrence so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 01.01.2017.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in the four walls of her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. It is further submitted that the applicant is the husband who bears the highest order of responsibility in the matter.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, the relationship of the applicant to the deceased who is the husband but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
Learned counsel for the applicant points out that though the case has already been committed but the charges have not been framed. The trial court is directed to frame the charges forthwith subject to all just rights to claim discharge in accordance with law by the accused, and, thereafter proceed with the trial and conclude the same within six months next positively from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Deepak