Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Kuldeep – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 8561 of 2019
Decided on : 18-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 309 and 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3/4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 – Dowry Death and Murder - second bail application - Applicant has submitted that she is conscious about fact that this is second bail application, therefore she cannot raise those grounds which could have been taken in first bail application but she is pressing present application only on ground that applicant is in jail for about 6 years yet trial has not been concluded - Apart from above submissions, learned counsel for applicant also submits that applicant is in jail since 12.08.2016 and has already undergone a substantial period of about six years in jail and till date trial has not yet been concluded - This Court anguish towards poor progress of trial, trial must have been concluded by now and learned trial court is having powers to take coercive method to conclude trial and also armed with provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.(Para 16)
Finding of the court: This Court anguish towards the poor progress of trial, the trial must have been concluded by now and learned trial court is having powers to take coercive method to conclude the trial and also armed with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court is unable to comprehend as to how there is no good progress in the trial, the nature of evidence, period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering that applicant is in jail since 12.08.2016 and trial has not yet been concluded and out of 18 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined as per the communication of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 and averment made in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit by the applicant as well as considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of Constitution of India - Let the applicant, involved in Case Crime under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on conditions - It is clarified that observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to disposal of bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on ultimate merit of case - Trial court is directed to conclude trial of this case preferably, within a period of six months from today without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either parties except there is any legal impediment or order of higher Court.
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This case is taken up in the revised call.
2. Heard Ms. Divya Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anirudha Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
3. The applicant, Kuldeep, has moved this second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.189 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao.
4. The first bail application was rejected by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar vide order dated 16.04.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3503 (B) of 2017. This second bail application has been placed before this regular Bench in the light of Hon'ble The Chief Justice's order dated 20.10.2021 as the instant bail application has been released by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
5. While rejecting the first bail application on 16.04.2019, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to observe as under:
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. There was no demand of dowry made by the applicant from his wife. It is contended that there is no evidence to prove the said allegations made in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry and the cruelty that has been alleged in the FIR thus, the FIR is false. The postmortem report as well as the statement of witnesses does not supported the case of prosecution. The deceased has committed suicide as she was depressed and the applicant and his family members have no role in the alleged incident. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since August, 2016 and the applicant will not misuse the liberty if he is enlarged on bail. It is lastly contended that the co-accused mother and father of the applicant have been granted bail by this Court which is annexed as Annexure-5 to this bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that parity with the bail order of mother and father cannot be claimed by the present accused-applicant and their bail were granted on different ground which are not available to the present accused-applicant (husband). It is contended that there are antemortem injuries one bite mark and another is abraded contusion apart from ligature mark which has not been explained. It is a heinous offence, both the wife of the applicant and the daughter were died. In this case under Section 304B IPC, the burden of proof is on the accused-applicant. The applicant-accused has miserably failed to give any explanation of murder of both the deceased wife and minor daughter. The statement of Neetu Gupta, the complainant corroborates the prosecution story. The mother of the deceased has also corroborates the prosecution story.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that deceased family members i.e., Ritu (sister), Amit (brother), Ram Sevak (uncle) and Raja Ram (another uncle) had also committed sucide and Ram Swaroop (father) has also died due to heavy consumption of alcohol. Therefore, the deceased was having a family history of suicide.
In reply to this, the learned AGA has submitted that it has no co-relation with the present case and moreover the two persons have lost their life in this case i.e., one is deceased Rajani and another is her minor daughter Yashi.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, I find that no good ground is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail.
The bail application of the applicant Kuldeep involved in Case Crime No. 189 of 2016, under Section 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao is, accordingly, rejected. ”
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that three years period have been passed from the order dated 16.04.2019 but the trial
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
