Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3945 of 2019 Applicant :- Munendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on the record.
Applicant-Munendra seeks bail in S.T. No.1252 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.517 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Behjoi, District Sambhal.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the first informant. No dowry was ever demanded by him. He has further submits that in fact it is a case of suicide. During trial first informant as PW 1 and mother of the deceased as PW 2 were examined. However, they have not supported the prosecution case. They have not even alleged that there was any demand of dowry and PW 1 has even gone to the extent of denying the lodging of the F.I.R. Thus the applicant, who is in jail since 6.9.2017, may be enlarged on bail during trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for the bail and submitted that the deceased had died within three years of her marriage on account of throttling. In the post mortem report several ante mortem injuries on the neck and abdomen of the deceased were found. There is every possibility of the conviction of the accused on the alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. as the facts within the knowledge of the applicant have not been placed by him. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,I do not find any ground to consider the prayer for bail of the applicant. The prayer for bail is declined at this stage.
The application for bail is, hereby, rejected without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 MN/-