Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30258 of 2015 Applicant :- Virendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla,Rajendra Kumar Pandey,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,Vikrant Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Tej Bhan Singh
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant has filed his counter affidavit today in the Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Learned counsel for the applicant contents that as per F.I.R., the cause of death is said to have been found was strangulation for want of additional dowry and the viscera has been preserved. Learned counsel further contents that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the incident is said to have taken place after 11 years of the marriage and learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court of Annexure-SA4 and SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.04.2017 which is the statement of the daughter and son of the victim, wherein it has been stated that the victim-mother namely, Heena was an ailing lady and had undergone three major operations and on the alleged day of incident, the deceased was suffering from dysentery for which she had taken some medicine. It has further been stated by the children that on the day of the iincident their father had gone for his duty and that their father and mother had cordial relations. It is next argued that there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the near future and that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any previous criminal history. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2015 Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the first informant states that the name of the wife of the applicant is not Hena but her name is Mukul @ Mukhu and Hena is the real younger sister of the Mukul @ Mukhu, the deceased. Learned counsel further contends that Life Insurance Policy was also taken by the applicant in the name of Hena showing her to be his wife and also admitted his wife- deceased in the name of Hena in order to create evidence to help him encash the amount. He further submitted that the statement of the children are tutored and have been obtained for the purpose of the present case and that the trial is proceedings.
Learned A.G.A. has also contended that the name of the wife of the applicant is Mukul @ Mukhu and not Hena and has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and after perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.
However, the trial Judge is directed to consider and conclude the trial of the aforesaid case crime, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 S.Ali