Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8052 of 2018 Applicant :- Sarvesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Gautam,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Sarvesh in Case Crime No.182 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
The submission of the leaned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been roped in the instant crime on account of the fact alone that he is the husband; that there has never been a demand of dowry or cruelty in connection with same so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B I.P.C; that a perusal of the FIR shows that the parents of the victim and her family had arrived on learning of her suicidal death on 18.02.2017 but they did not immediately move to lodge FIR and doing so on 19.02.2017 at 10:00 a.m. after an unexplained delay of fourteen hours; that it is further said that in the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no mention of a dowry demand so as to energize the presumption under Section 113B I.P.C; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 18.03.2017 a period of almost one year as an undertrial.
Leanred AGA has opposed the bail plea with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage. He has, in particular, pointed out the delay of fourteen hours in lodging the FIR has been well explained and that the applicant being the husband bears the highest order of responsibility in the matter.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the relationship of the applicant to the deceased who is the husband 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, accordingly, stands rejected at this stage.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is in jail as an undertrial for a period of one year whereas the trial court has not gone ahead from framing of charges.
Looking to the period of detention it is directed that the trial court shall proceed with the matter and conclude the trial within a period of six months next strictly in accordance 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 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 is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Shahroz