By the Court.—Order on Second Bail Application

Heard Mr. Noor Mohammad learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of appellant Anees Miya in ST No. 524 of 2008 in Case Crime No. 1335 of 2007 under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 4 DP Act PS Baradari District Bareilly. The first bail application was rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.2.2012.

3.The second bail application is being pressed solely on the ground of long incarceration of the appellant as the appellant is in jail since 17.7.2007.

We have perused the order dated 21.2.2012 by means of which the first bail application was rejected by another Bench of this Court. The said order is being reproduced hereunder :

“Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, and Sri A.K.Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the lower Court record.

From the perusal of the record it appears that the appellant Anees Miya is the husband of the deceased, the marriage of the deceased Smt. Sabra was solemnized about two and half year prior the alleged incident, after marriage the demand of dowry was raised, in dowry Rs. 50,000/- and a Bullet Motorcycle was demanded for which the deceased was subjected to cruelty. At the time of alleged incident, the deceased was having 1,1/2 year old male child in her lap. The deceased was expelled from her husband’s house many times, about 2,1/2 years prior the alleged incident, she was expelled from her husband’s house but about one week prior to the alleged incident the appellant gave assurance that he would not give any chance of complain, then the deceased was sent in the company of the appellant, on 16.7.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. by pouring kerosene oil, she was set on fire, when she set sitting on the chair.

According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained ante mortem burn injuries; the smell of kerosene was also coming out from the body. In support of the prosecution version 9 witness, and from the defence side five witness have been examined. According to the site plan half burnt chair was found at the place of the incident, the death of the deceased was unnatural, it has occurred within seven year of her marriage and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

Accordingly this bail application is rejected.”

4. Perusal of record shows that deceased who happens to be the wife of the appellant was burnt to death and her charred body was found sitting on the chair which is highly improbable if it was a case of suicide.

Mr. Noor Mohammad learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the bail application with the contention that he is ready to argue the appeal finally and he further submits that in case the appeal is not being heard, he is entitled to bail solely on the ground of long period of detention. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Manoj Mahle v. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 41338 of 2017 (decided on 19.3.2018), Mehboob and another v. State of Uttarakhand passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1504/2015 (decided on 10.5.2016) and Amit Bansal v. State of UP passed in Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2018 (decided on 23.3.2018).

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that this is the second bail application and moreover the very fact that the charred body of the deceased was found sitting on the chair is highly improbable because if it is a case of suicide certainly the person would be running helter and skelter and under no circumstances the body can be found sitting on the chair. The contention of learned AGA is to the effect that the circumstance and the manner in which the charred body was found sitting on a chair could be possible only if the person is tied down to the chair and then put to th