Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11001 of 2018 Applicant :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Baranwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is a bail application on behalf of Manish Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 294 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sarpataha, District Jaunpur.
Heard Sri Pankaj Baranwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Vivek Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband and on that account alone he has been falsely implicated in the present crime; that there has been no demand of dowry or harassment in connection therewith so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC; that it was a case of accident by fire while the deceased was boiling a pot of brew-tea as said in paragraph no. 5 of the affidavit; that the FIR is absolutely an opportunistic one which has been lodged after a day when the proceeding of inquest in the presence of the deceased's father and mother had been done with no eyebrow raised; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail in the this crime since 05.06.2017.
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 the four walls of her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. In addition, the learned AGA submits that the applicant being the husband bears highest order of responsibility in the matter. As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, 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.
It is made clear that anything said in this order would not affect the case of either side on merits at the trial and the trial court will be absolutely free to come to its own conclusion without influenced by anything said in this order.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected at this stage.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months next from the receipt of a 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 vs. 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Deepak