Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 875 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Balrampur.
This the third bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a reasoned order on 31.07.2019 passed in Bail No. 5416 of 2018. While rejecting it, this Court took note of the post-mortem report, which shows that the deceased has received nine injuries on different parts of body. The second bail application has been rejected vide order dated 06.01.2021 passed in Bail No. 7830 of 2020 for want of prosecution.
While pressing the instant bail application, learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of a letter of CMO, Bahraich dated 18.03.2020 received by the parokar of the applicant in response to his application preferred under Right to Information Act, 2005, submitted that the deceased was referred from Balrampur Hospital to District Hospital, Bahraich. She was treated there for certain time period. It is mentioned in this letter that no injury was found on the body of the deceased, as such, the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report carried out on 19.07.2017 at 4:55 P.M. are doubtful and as such, the benefit of the same should be extended to the applicant and this is a new ground, as such, the present application for bail may be allowed and the applicant may be released on bail.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. She submitted that before the trial Court, it appears from Annexure No. 10 to the present bail application that seven witnesses have been examined and at this stage, on the ground as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. She further submitted that the applicant has not specifically stated in the entire bail application that the post-mortem was not carried out at Balrampur or the post-mortem report is in fact fake. The applicant has only created a doubt on the basis of a letter given to his parokar in response to the application moved by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She further submitted that the contents of the application would not override the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon given in the post-mortem report, which was also considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application. The Autopsy Surgeon has specifically opined that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante mortem injury. In this view of the matter, the present bail application is liable to be rejected.
Considering the entirety of the case, I find that the submissions of learned AGA have force. Accordingly, this third bail application is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court is vacant and the case is not proceeding further. In this regard, he placed reliance on Annexure No. 19. It is however, not clear that at present whether the Court below is vacant or not. This Court is taking the statement of learned counsel for the applicant on its face value.
Considering the entirety of the case particularly that the applicant is in jail since 23.07.2017 and it appears from the record that the statement of relevant witnesses have already been recorded, as appears from Annexure No. 10, which is the statement of PW-7, the trial Court is directed to conclude the present proceedings of the pending trial within six months, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.
If the Court below is vacant, it is open for the applicant to move an appropriate application before the District and Sessions Judge, Balrampur to transfer the case before the appropriate Court in the light of the observations made by this Court in this order.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Arun/-