Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24827 of 2018 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Srivastava,Siddhartha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava and Himanshu Srivastava, 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 - Raj Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 79 of 2017, under Sections - 498A, 304B, 201, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bishunpura, District - Kushi Nagar, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence of dowry and dowry death, punishable with imprisonment upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 22.3.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 17.5.2017;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation, however, he surrendered after two months;
(iii) though charge-sheet has been submitted on 28.6.2017, at present, not a single witness of fact has been examined in the court.
4. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there are gross inconsistencies in the prosecution case, inasmuch as, the deceased died a natural death. Her body was cremated in presence of her parents and, in any case, brother of the informant who is stated to have shared the allegation of dowry with the informant, did not get his statement recorded. He is also not a prosecution witness for that reason.
5. The present bail application has been opposed by learned AGA. He would submit that, at present, four witness of fact are to be examined. In absence of their evidence being first recorded, no benefit may be claimed by the applicant. Insofar as the parents of the present applicant, they have already been enlarged on bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in view of the nature of charge framed against the applicant and his relationship with the deceased and in view of statutory presumptions available against him, prayer for grant of bail is declined.
7. Accordingly the bail application is rejected at this stage. However, liberty of the applicant cannot be allowed to be curtailed for indefinite period of time pending trial. It is observed that the trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of nine months from today.
8. In any case, the trial court shall be at liberty to adopt all coercive measures to ensure the attendance of the prosecution witness of fact so that their testimony can be recorded in next three months. In case of subsequent development as may entitle the applicant to bail, at that stage, the applicant would remain entitled to file a fresh application.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Prakhar