Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11361 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Rajan in Case Crime No. 364 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the husband and has been falsely implicated on account of that fact alone; that there has never been any demand of dowry or cruelty in connection with dowry demand so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC; that there are general allegations against the entire family members with no specific role being assigned to the applicant as said in paragraph 4 of the affidavit; that the marriage was about six years old which makes it rather unlikely for a case of dowry death at this distance of time; that co-accused Rukmani and Pali Ram have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court as per particulars mentioned in paragraph 11 of the affidavit and on the ground of parity, therefore, the applicant also is entitled to the same concession; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 26.08.2017.
Learned AGA has opposed the plea for bail. He submits that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage with a background of dowry demand. He further submits that applicant being the husband bears the highest order of responsibility.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits, does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the trial pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of 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 the 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 shall initiate necessary coercive measures to ensure their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Imroz