Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7605 of 2018 Applicant :- Anvesh Yadav@ Anvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Anvesh Yadav @ Anvesh Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 3001 of 2011 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kampil, District Farrukhabad.
Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he is the husband; that the first information report was lodged against him and the entire family giving rise to Case Crime No. 3001 of 2011 under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kampil District Farrukhabad wherein after investigation, the police have submitted a final report; that later on the informant who had lodged the FIR with a delay of 6 days without any explanation protested the final report which was treated by the Magistrate as a complaint, statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. numbering as many as five were recorded; that thereafter a summoning order came to be passed by the Magistrate in compliance to which the applicant has surrendered in court and is in jail since 12.07.2017; that the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been implicated on account of the fact that he is the husband; that there is absolutely no evidence of demand for dowry or cruelty in connection with dowry demand preceding the commission of the offence so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC; that no specific role has been assigned o the applicant and all other co-accused in the case have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court by orders of different dates copies of which have been appended collectively as annexed as annexure no. 7 to the affidavit; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 12.07.2017 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 has further pointed out that the summoning order in this case was passed by the C.J.M. Farrukhabad on 12.03.2014 whereas the applicant has surrendered after a period of more than three years during which he remained a fugitive. As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
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, in particular, the period during which the applicant was absconding 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.
In case, the matter has not yet been committed to the court of Sessions, the concerned Magistrate to whom this order will be communicated by the office through the CJM, Farrukhabad shall commit the case within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned trial court will endeavour to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of six months next after committal of the case to the court of Sessions 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 necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Deepak