Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9412 of 2018 Applicant :- Arif Alias Salman Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rammani Giri,Dr. Arun Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi, ,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. 702 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B and 323 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Thana Bhawan, District Shamli. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 11.4.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 12476 of 2017.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order by this Court.
The present second bail application is being pressed with the contention that complainant side is not permitting the trial to proceed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has informed the Court that the bail application of co-accused Sagiruddin (father-in-law) aged about 69 years has already been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.1.2018. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
"The applicant is said to be an old man of 69 years and is in jail since 18.11.2016. The trial court is directed to expedite trial as the case is reported to have been committed and to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. In case, however, trial is not concluded within the time indicated except on account of adjournment sought by or on behalf of any of the accused, it would be open to the applicant to renew his plea for bail through a fresh application."
However, the perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, keeping in view the direction as contained in the order dated 3.1.2018, it is provided 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 :- 29.3.2018 Kuldeep