Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4957 of 2017 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Srivastava,Vijay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri S.A.S. Abidi, learned AGA appearing for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Santosh Kumar in Case Crime No.296 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is the husband and has been implicated in the instant crime only on account of the fact that he is the husband with no complicity; that in the submission of the learned counsel the victim/deceased Anita was a patient of schizophrenia and was under medication; that the deceased committed suicide on account of her mental ailment and on the fateful day by sprinkling kerosene oil set herself ablaze,where she suffered severe burn injuries and due to injuries she later succumbed; that the said fact was well within the knowledge of the in-laws and on that account a prompt FIR was not lodged; that a belated FIR after 16 days was registered by the sister's husband of the deceased; that the applicant is a handicapped man with a permanent disability of 50 percent, a fact which is evident from the perusal of the handicap certificate annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit issued by the office of Chief Medical officer, Kanpur Nagar on account of which it cannot be believed that he could have participated in a violent crime of the nature attributed to him in the FIR; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 20.10.2016, a period of more than one and a half years.
Learned AGA has opposed the plea for bail. He submits that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial home with an antecedent dowry demand and that, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail. Moreover, as the applicant is the husband.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing against the applicant at this stage 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, the fact remains that applicant is a handicapped man and it is very hard for him to suffer undertrial incarceration which he has already undergone for a period of one and a half years. Learned counsel also submits that to the best of his knowledge the case has not yet been committed. It is ordered that in case the case has not yet been committed the same may be committed within 15 days next by the Magistrate concerned from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which shall be forwarded by the office forthwith through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial within six months next from the 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. 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.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Imroz