Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21573 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Mahendra Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 265 of 2017, under Sections - 498-A, 304- B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Airwa Katra, District - Auraiya, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of dowry death, punishable with imprisonment upto life or death penalty;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 28.8.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 30.8.2017;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) though charge-sheet has already been submitted, despite lapse of more than sufficient time, trial has yet not been concluded. At present, it appears, only statement of P.W.-1 i.e. the informant, who is the father of the deceased, has been recorded. Hence, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.
(vi) on prima facie basis only, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that though the allegation of demand of dowry had been alleged in the FIR, and during investigation, such statements came to be recorded by the police, at the trial, P.W.-1 has clearly refuted such allegations. Relying on the statement of the P.W.-1 (filed with the supplementary affidavit), it has been submitted, neither there was any demand of dowry nor such allegation is stated to have been made during investigation. Further, it has been submitted, the cremation of the body of the deceased was performed with the consent of the P.W.-1 itself.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that, at present, nine witness of fact remain to be examined and, therefore, no bail may be granted as may prejudice the outcome of the trial.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, without making any observations as may prejudice the outcome of the trial, it does appear that the applicant has been in jail for more than sufficient time pending trial, inasmuch as, he has been in jail for more than two years. On one hand, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, on the other, from the list of witness mentioned in the charge-sheet, it does not appear that any close relative of the victim remain to be examined. In any case, father of the victim has already been examined, as has been noted above.
6. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. Also, it is directed that the trial court may make best efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, without allowing any undue or long adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Prakhar