Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34434 of 2017 Applicant :- Sanjay Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Narain,Shamshuddin Khan,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri S.U. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Sanjay Agrawal in Case Crime No.198 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Barua Sagar, District Jhansi.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated on account of fact alone that he happens to be the husband; that there is no demand of dowry or cruelty preceding the occurrence so as to attract the provision of Section 304B IPC; that the deceased has committed unabetted suicide due to reasons traceable to her childhood psyche as her father passed away during her childhood and the mother re- married, which led her to suffer from depression and that was the cause that led her to commit suicide on the fateful day in a stressful moment by hanging herself as would be apparent from a perusal of post mortem report; that, however, a perusal of the post mortem report as Sri Khan points out also shows that Viscera have been preserved but that report has not been received; that learned counsel for the applicant has laid particular emphasis on the fact that of the six witnesses for the prosecution, three have deposed in the ongoing sessions trial no. 51/2017 pending before the court of Sessions Judge, Jhansi and they have not supported the prosecution case; that looking to the evidence of the three witnesses of fact PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 further detention of the applicant is not warranted pending trial; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 18.11.2016, a period of more than a year and a quarter as an undertrial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case of unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial home with the background of dowry demand. He has pointed out that applicant is the husband who has got a higher order of answerability compared to other co-accused.
Considering the 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 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 stands rejected at this stage.
However, looking to the fact that three witnesses of fact have already been examined with another three remaining besides formal witnesses, it is directed that trial court shall proceed with and conclude the trial within a period of three months next positively 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.
In case, witnesses do not appear on summons first issued, coercive process shall be immediately issued to secure their attendance and once a witness appears, he/she/they shall not be discharged until conclusion of their evidence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Imroz