Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46595 of 2018 Applicant :- Srikant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Srikant seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 138 of 2017 (State Vs. Srikant and others), Case Crime No. 631 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun during the pendency of the above mentioned trial which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jalaun at Orai.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Khushbu on 7.5.2017. However, just after the expiry of a period of one month and seven days from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 14.6.2017 in which wife of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 14.6.2017, not on the information given by the present applicant or any of the family members but on the information given by Ram Ratan the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterised as homicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. 15.6.2017. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. However, no external ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 14.6.2017 by the father of the deceased, namely, Ram Ratan which was registered as Case Crime No. 631 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. In the aforesaid F.I.R. six persons, namely, Srikant - husband, Arvind - Jeth, Smt. Kalawati - mother-in-law, Smt. Saroj - Nanad and Matasharan - father-in-law were nominated as named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted a charge sheet dated 2.7.2017 only against three of the named accused i.e. husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. Jeth, Jethani and Nanad of the deceased have been excluded. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide committal order dated 21.8.2017. As a consequence of the aforesaid S.T. No. 138 of 2017 (State Vs. Srikant and others) came to be registered which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jalaun at Orai.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 17.6.2017 as such the applicant has undergone one year and six month of incarceration. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. It is then submitted that the prosecution witnesses of fact, who have been examined up to this stage have not supported the prosecution story as unfolded F.I.R. It is thus urged that since the demand of dowry and commission of cruelty upon the deceased for the non fulfillment of the alleged demand of dowry has not been established by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the deceased was a young lady aged about 20 years and her death has taken at her matrimonial home just after one month and seven days from the date of her marriage. As a result the death of the deceased is highly unnatural. The trial has already commenced and is at an advance stage. Therefore, interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously instead of considering the bail application of the applicant.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on the record and the complicity of the applicants but without making any comments on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application of the present applicant stands rejected.
However, the trial court is expected to gear up the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided the applicant fully cooperates in conclusion of the trial, if there is no other legal impediment.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Manoj