Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31188 of 2021 Applicant :- Nisar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Tripathi,Akash Tyagi,Surya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Nisar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 1174 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 149, 306, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kanker Khera, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the applicant with the daughter of first informant was solemnized around three years back and the couple were leading a happy married life, as is evident from the fact that from the wedlock, a child was born who was aged about one year at the time of the incident. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide and died which is also suggestive from the postmortem report, wherein, the doctor has found a single ligature mark on the body of the deceased and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.
Learned counsel has argued that trial in the present case has started in which the statements of five prosecution witnesses have been examined. The copies of the said statements are annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. It is argued that co- accused mother-in-law, devars, father-in-law of the deceased namely Smt. Farmudan @ Farmuddin; Shahjad and Salman; Nasibuddin, have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 30.05.2019, 29.11.2019 and 07.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 13235 of 2019, 52866 of 2019 and 30201 of 2020, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. It is argued that the implication of the applicant in the present case is false and the allegation regarding demand of dowry is false and without any evidence and the same is an afterthought, just in order to falsely implicate and harass the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 06.10.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of deceased took place in the matrimonial house within three years of marriage, which is unnatural. It is further argued that the doctor conducting the postmortem examination, has found a four months live foetus in the uterus of the deceased and the commission of suicide at this stage by a lady is an improbability. It is argued that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The death of Smt. Farjana wife of the applicant took place within three years of marriage in her matrimonial house, which is unnatural. The deceased was having a pregnancy of around four months at the time of her death. In the trial five prosecution witnesses have been examined which is at an advance stage nearing completion. The argument of learned counsel while placing the statement of P.W.-1 / the first informant for lodging the first information report was transcribed by the police on which, her thumb impression was fixed is a matter to be judged in trial.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principles as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702, subject to any legal impediment, and, further subject to the fact that the working of the trial court is not disturbed of the modalities of working of court due to pandemic Covid-19, the abstinence of work by lawyers and leave of the Presiding Officer.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)