Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11419 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Saran Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Wajid Ali Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ankit Srivastave learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Ram Saran, seeking enlargement on bail involved in Case Crime No. 338 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Farenda, District Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased Smt. Geeta committed suicide and died. To support his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed his argument on postmortem report of the deceased and has proceeded to argue that even the doctor has given the cause of death due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging which is consistent with suicide. It is argued that the story regarding demand of dowry is false and incorrect and had seen the light of the day for the first time when the present first information report has been lodged. While showing the bona fides of the family members of the applicant it is argued that they were present at the time of inquest proceedings. It is further argued that the first information report is delayed by about 22 days for which there is no plausible explanation. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 30.10.2018.
Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and her marriage was solemnized in 2012 and the incident took place in 2018. It is further argued that there was a consistent demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- for which Rs. 25,000/- was given and further Rs. 4000/- was also given with an assurance to give the remaining amount within 10 days but the applicant who is the husband did not even get satisfied with it and committed the offence. It is further argued that the trial in the present case has started and the statement of one witness has been recorded and release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in trial.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,I do not find it a fit case bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the Sessions Trial No. 171 of 2018 and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., subject to any legal impediment.
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 :- 6.1.2021 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)