This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. First bail application was rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this Court on 23.9.2013 on merits.
Applicant Lilawati @ Chandrakala @ Neelam seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mauaima, District Allahabad.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and also perused the material placed on record.
Submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 19.3.2012 and the trial has not concluded, though it has already commenced and substantially proceeded. He further submitted that some of the witnesses have already been examined but it is likely to consume some more time to conclude. In these facts and circumstances, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed this bail application and contended that the prosecution is apprehensive of the fact that in case the applicant is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the judicial process and tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, I do not think it proper to discuss the evidence and give reasoning for consideration of prayer for bail as any expression or opinion by this Court will undoubtedly effect the trial.
In view of above, it would not be proper to consider the bail prayer at this stage and the same is declined. The application is accordingly rejected, without expressing any opinion on merit of case.
However, keeping in view of the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19.3.2012, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, if possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of this order. The trial court shall take all the recourses permitted under the law to secure and ensure the presence of the witnesses and the proposed accused, if necessary. Both the parties are expected to cooperate in the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.
The office is directed to send the copy of the order to the District Judge/Trial Court immediately for the communication and necessary compliance through fastest mode of communication.
Order Date :- 22.8.2014/S.S.