Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20537 of 2018 Applicant :- Anil Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, Nitya Nand, Ram Kishun Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Kishun Misra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Anil Chauhan with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 59 of 2016, under Sections - 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Chakarghatta, District - Chandauli, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of dowry and dowry death, punishable with imprisonment upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 26.8.2016, the applicant is in confinement since 28.8.2016;
(iii) though charge-sheet has been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.
4. Relying on the FIR and also the treatment papers of the deceased along with the inquest report, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, there is no material to infer occurrence of dowry death. The deceased was receiving treatment for undiagnosed ailment and she died while going to Varanasi upon being referred to higher medical facility.
5. The present bail application has been opposed by learned AGA on the ground that the viscera report brings out that the cause of death was administration of poisonous substance namely, aluminium phosphide. Thus, it has been submitted, the cause of death is clearly unnatural and further allegations of demand of dowry preceding such occurrence are also on record.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, though no final inference is to be drawn, at this stage, it may be noted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and his father and mother have been enlarged on bail.
7. Keeping in mind the prima facie evidence, as has been discussed above, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly the bail application is rejected.
8. However, rejection of the bail application may not invite any indefinite detention of the applicant as he has already been in confinement for more than three years. It is observed that the trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today. Also, the trial court may keep in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. to ensure that the trial may be concluded within time indicated above.
9. Needless to add, if for some reason, the trial remained pending for more than one year, the applicant may remain entitled to apply for bail, at that stage, keeping in mind the evidence that may have been received.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Prakhar