Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 106 of 2019 Applicant :- Gaurav Khurana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Gaurav Khurana, in Case Crime no.332 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kutubsher, District Saharanpur.
Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband of the victim. During investigation the informant and other witnesses for the prosecution have spoken inculpatory against him alleging a case of cruelty in connection with dowry demand, on account of which it was asserted that the victim was done to death by setting her afire. It is pointed out by Sri Tripathi that in the ongoing trial, the first informant, that is to say, the father of the victim has spoken clearly exculpatory. He has said, on learning of his daughter's death, the informant lost his bearings and was made to sign a First Information Report, the contents of which he did not know, or does he own them. It is just that it bears his signature. It is thereafter said that his daughter was never tortured, or subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Similarly, the other witnesses, PW-2, PW-3 and PW4 have also spoken exculpatory. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the categorical testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution in the dock evidence, who are witnesses of fact, including the first informant, who is the father of the victim, there is no justification to detain the applicant further pending trial, who is in jail since 05.08.2017.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within the four walls of her matrimonial home with a background of cruelty in connection with dowry demand that has figured in the FIR. He submits that the evaluation of evidence recorded during trial lies in the province of the trial court particularly when the burden is on the defence to explain the circumstances, which can be judged based at the trial, and not at this stage. Moreover, the applicant is the husband.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application stands rejected again at this stage.
However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2017, and a period of one and a half has gone by, where four witnesses have so far been examined, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same positively within four months.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court concerned through the learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by the Registrar General within a week.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Anoop