Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40467 of 2017 Applicant :- Jitendra @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Jitendra @ Jeetu in Case Crime No.51 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Pisawa, District Aligarh.
Heard Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA alongwith Sri Kulveer Singh appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is the husband and has been falsely implicated on that account alone; that the applicant or his family never tortured the deceased wife in connection with dowry demand; that currently trial on the basis of an FIR lodged by the deceased wife's father is in progress being S.T. No.559 of 2017 before the Fast Track Court-II, Aligarh where the first informant has deposed as PW-1 on 04.10.2017, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit a perusal of which shows that he has not at all supported the prosecution story and has said that the entire prosecution was based on incorrect information about dowry demand given to the witness/informant by his late daughter amongst other things; and, that in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant looking to the stand of the first informant in the witness box the applicant is entitled to bail.
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 her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. He points out that the evidence PW-1 is concerned he is not the sole witness of fact and there are a number of other witnesses for the prosecution who are yet to be examined. He further submits that conclusions from the evidence led at the trial is a matter that is in the province of the trial court which cannot be pre-judged at this stage even for the purpose of consideration of bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing in the case, the relationship of the applicant to the deceased who is the husband but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.
The bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded strictly and positively within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order 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 V. 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 positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Shahroz