Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3242 of 2018 Applicant :- Prabhash Mandal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This application was filed as a fresh matter on 27th January, 2018. On 30.01.2018 when came up for the first time in the Court the learned counsel for the applicant did not appear. Again the matter came up on 01.02.2018 when there was a request on his behalf to adjourn the matter, the matter was adjourned to 08.02.2018. On 08.02.2018 also the case was called on in the revised call but no one has appeared therefore the following order was passed:-
"This is an application for bail on behalf of Prabhash Mandal in connection with Case Crime No. 264 of 2016 under Section 498A, 304B, IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Amriya, District Pilibhit.
This application was filed on 27.01.2018 and came up for the first time before the Court on 30.01.2018 when the following order was passed:
"On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, put up on 01.02.2018 as fresh."
Subsequently, in accordance with order passed on 30.01.2018, the matter again came up on 01.02.2018 when the applicant did not appear despite the case being called on in the revised list. The following order was made on 01.02.2018:
"This matter came up for the first time as a fresh case on 30.01.2018 when a request was made to adjourn this matter to 01.02.2018.
Today, this case is listed at serial no. 6 of the supplementary cause list.
Case has been called on in the revised list but no one appears. Since there is a request from Bar for no adverse orders being made looking to the difficulties on account of a changeover in the computer system, let this matter be appear again as fresh on 08.02.2018."
Today, the matter is again before the Court in the supplementary list of fresh cases in accordance with the order passed on 01.02.2018 but the learned counsel for the applicant is not present despite a revised call. There is no doubt a request from the Bar that no orders be made looking to the difficulties in listing of cases on account of change over in the operating system affecting computerized listing.
Nevertheless, looking to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Hussain and another vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2017 SC 1362, this Court is under a mandate to dispose of bail applications, as far as possible, within one month and this case, therefore, cannot be adjourned indefinitely.
Thus, reconciling the request of the Bar and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Hussain (supra) it is directed that this matter may come up again as a fresh cause on 27.02.2018. It is made clear that on the next date fixed, this bail application will be disposed of on merits with the assistance of learned AGA and upon perusal of the record.
Let the office send a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the applicant Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AOR No. A/J-0328/2013 within 48 hours in writing and place on record an acknowledgement of service."
In compliance with the order dated 08.02.2018 the office has attempted a contact to Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant over telephone and since he was not available information through speed post about the date fixed for this day (27.02.2018) was sent to him. The office report dated 26.02.2018 is quoted below:-
ek0 U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fn0 08-02-18 ds vuqikyu esa lknj izsf"kr djuk gS fd Jh ftrsUnz dqekj ;kno] vf/koDrk dks ek0 U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds lUnHkZ esa VsyhQksu }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS ,oa miyC/k u gksus ds dkj.k muds fuokl LFkku ij fyf[kr lwpuk LihM iksLV }kjk Hkstk x;k gS ftldh dk;kZy; dkih i=koyh ij fLFkr gSA ek0 U;k;ky; ds le{k lknj voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ gsrq izLrqrA Case called on in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the applicant again.
Looking to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and another Vs. Union of India, AIR, 2017 SC 1362 this bail application filed on 27th January, 2018 has completed the period of one month during which bail applications are required to be disposed of by a High Court.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to dispose of this application upon perusal of record and with the assistance of the learned AGA.
Perused the record and heard Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
The applicant who is the husband stands charged in Case Crime No.264 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Amriya, District-Pilibhit.
A perusal of bail application shows that the applicant has urged in support of his prayer for bail that he has been falsely implicated in the crime on the sole account that he happens to be the husband; that the deceased consumed poison of herself whereas the applicant got her admitted to the hospital for treatment as asserted in paragraph-8 of the bail application; that the deceased was a lady of short temper and she committed suicide leaving behind no dying declaration; that co-accused Krishna Mandal, the mother-in- law and the applicant's younger brother have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.15082 of 2017 and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 28.04.2016, that is to say, almost a period of two years by now as an undertrial entitling him to bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. However, learned AGA does not dispute the fact that there are general allegations against the applicant.
Learned AGA has further pointed out that the viscera report from FSL, Lucknow has confirmed D.D.B.P poison in the viscera sent for analysis which spares no doubt that it is a case of poisoning.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, 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.
The bail application, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the fact that the applicant has already spent nearly two years in jail as an undertrial, it is ordered that the trial court where S.T. No.131 of 2016, (State Vs. Prabhas Mandal and others), under Sections-498-A, 304- B, 3/4 D.P. Act is pending shall proceed with and conclude the trial within a period of six months next from the date of receipt of 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 V. 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 positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Ashutosh