Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20853 of 2018 Applicant :- Shahzad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal,Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present third bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2016 and the second bail application was rejected by this Court on 24.11.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant has informed the Court that as far as the bail granted to the applicant by the lower court is concerned, the same was cancelled by this Court with the observation that the applicant is the husband and he has not made any effort for the recovery. Neither any 'Gumshudagi' nor any FIR has been lodged by the applicant. Subsequently, the second bail application was filed before this Court which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2017.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant had married with the deceased Rehana Parveen who was murdered by the accused-persons including the present applicant. Contention is that there is no missing report or Gumshudagi had filed from the side of the complainant.
Further contention is that the applicant is in jail since 25.11.2016, however, till date no witness has been examined.
Perusal of the record shows that no subsequent development or any new ground has been brought on record.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, 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.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018/SKG