Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23129 of 2019 Applicant :- Karan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Karan Singh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kishunpur, District-Fatehpur, during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the first information report dated 10th May, 2018, marriage of the sister of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant on 4th May, 2017, who has been died in her room sustaining burn injuries. The said incident has taken place on 9th May, 2018 at 01:30 a.m. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent. The first informant along with his family members came to the house of the applicant and after getting the information about the death of his sister i.e. deceased, demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation after the death of the deceased from the applicant, but on refusal by the applicant, he lodged the present first information report falsely implicating the applicant and his parents. The deceased i.e the wife of the applicant has died in an accidental fire, while she was cooking food. It is further argued that as on date four prosecution witnesses of facts have been examined as P.W.-1 Dharampal Singh i.e. first informant, P.W.-2 Raghuraj Singh, P.W.-3 Krishna Kumar Singh and P.W.-4 Vijay Singh and all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 12th May, 2018.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. He submits that the applicants are the charge-sheeted accused under Section 304-B I.P.C. also. As such the presumption is available to the prosecution. The occurrence has taken place in the house of the applicant and therefore, the burden is upon the applicants to explain the same and also the cause behind the occurrence in terms of Sections 106 and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the applicants have failed to discharge the aforesaid burden. It is further submitted that the applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. The deceased was a young girl aged about 22 years and she has died just after one year from the date of her marriage, which is highly unnatural. It is, thus, urged that the present bail application of the applicants is liable to be rejected.
It is lastly submitted that the trial has already commenced and on date four witnesses of facts, namely, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have already been examined. As such, it is urged that instead of considering the bail application of the applicant, the interest of justice shall better be served in case the trial itself is directed to be expedited by this Court.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment. If possible, the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 3.6.2019 Sushil/-