Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18968 of 2017 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivakant
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant-Jitendra Kumar, seeking his enlargement on bail during pendency of the trial in case crime no. 283 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sultanpur Ghosh, District-Fatehpur.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Laxmi Devi on 11.12.2013. However, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 21.9.2016, in which the wife of the applicant died by committing suicide. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 22.9.2016. The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number submitted charge sheet against the present applicant as well as the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognianze was taken and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions. The same has been registered as S.T. No. 43 of 2017. On the date, three prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the death of the deceased has taken place within three years from the date of the marriage. Consequently, the presumption arising out of an offence under section 304 B IPC is available to the prosecution. However, the prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have not supported the prosecution case and have not alleged any thing adverse to the applicant. As such it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that all the three prosecution witnesses of fact have been declared hostile and therefore no benefit can be derived by the present applicant from the testimony of the aforesaid three witnesses except that part of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses which can be relied upon. However, it is for the Trial Court to undertake that exercise and then conclude whether that part of testimony which can be relied upon helps the present applicant or not. It is further submitted that since trial is also at advance stage, in the interest of justice, trial itself be expedited by this Court instead of considering the bail application on merit. It is thus urged that 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.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 HSM