Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24810 of 2017 Applicant :- Gangesh Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Kartikeya Saran, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Gangesh Pratap Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 807 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar/Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2016 (State Versus Gangesh Pratap Singh & Others), under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Sadhana on 18th February, 2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. After expiry of a period of little more than 2 years from the date of marriage, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11th August, 2016, in which the wife of the applicant died in mysterious circumstances. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12th August, 2016 on the information given by Joint Ward Boy Bhanu Pratap. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was due to burning. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12th August, 2016. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to ante-mortem burn injuries. The Doctor further noted that the burn injuries were all over body of the deceased. A first information report, in respect of the aforesaid incident, was lodged by the father of the deceased on 12th August, 2016, which was registered as Case Crime No.0807 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar. In the aforesaid first information report, five persons, namely, Gangesh Pratap Singh the husband i.e. the applicant herein, Ram Narayan Singh the father-in-law, Kalawati Singh the mother-in-law, Uma Singh the Jethani and Saroj Singh the sister-in-law of the deceased, were nominated as the named accused. Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Police has submitted a charge-sheet against some of the accused persons. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and consequently, Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2016 (State Versus Gangesh Pratap Singh & Others) came to be registered.
From the perusal of the order-sheet of the above mentioned sessions trial, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-R.A-1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today, it is apparent that the charge has not been framed till date.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and he is innocent. He is in jail since 18th August, 2016 having no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The trial has not proceeded adequately and even though the charge-sheet was submitted on 5th November, 2016, the charges have not been framed till date. It is, thus, submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He invited the attention of the Court to the order-sheet of the above mentioned sessions trial brought on record by means of the rejoinder affidavit referred to above. He submits that on the application filed by the accused-applicant before the court below, the framing of charge was deferred vide orders dated 13th December, 2016, 18th March, 2017 and 3rd June, 2017. Thereafter the accused filed another application before the court below being paper no.11 Kha in terms of Section 329 Cr.P.C., which is pending consideration. He, therefore, submits that on one hand the accused is seeking enlargement on bail and on the other he has filed application before the court below that he be granted benefit of Section 329 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the applicant being the husband of the deceased stands on a different footing than the father-in-law and therefore, no parity can be claimed by the present applicant from the bail order granted in favour of the father-in-law of the deceased. It is, thus, urged that no case for bail of the applicant is made out. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
In view of the facts as noted herein above and upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. as well as the complicity of the applicant and also upon perusal of the material on the record, I do not find any good reason to grant indulgence to the present applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Sushil/-