JUDGMENT :

1. This case is taken up in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anirudha Singh, and Sri Shiv Ram Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

3. The applicant, Fayanath Yadav, has moved this fourth bail application seeking bail in Case Crime 381/2011, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.

4. This fourth bail application has been placed before this regular Bench in the light of Hon'ble The Chief Justice's order dated 13.11.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has almost completed more than eleven years in incarceration, but till date the trial of this case has not been concluded.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 23.05.2011 and the applicant is named in the F.I.R. along with other co-accused persons and during investigation the complicity of four co-accused persons was not found, as such they were exonerated by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that there is no overt act assigned to the accused applicant and the allegation that the deceased was beaten in-front of villagers and was taken around the village is not supported by any independent witness of the village. The entire prosecution story developed in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated with the intention to falsely implicate the applicant and his relatives.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the mother of the applicant, namely, Smt. Kesh Pati was already granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2011 passed in Bail No. 6355 of 2011, but the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2011 and his first bail application was rejected by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Pal Singh (now retired) vide order dated 27.05.2013 passed in Bail Application No. 5793/2012. The order dated 13.09.2011 is being reproduced as under:

“List revised.

None present for the petitioner.

This bail application is rejected for want of prosecution.”

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that thereafter the applicant has moved second bail application, which was also rejected by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore (now retired) vide order dated 27.08.2015 passed in Bail Application No. 8318/2014 and while rejecting the second bail application, Hon’ble Court however directed the trial court to expedite the trial strictly adhering to the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. The order dated 27.08.2015 is being reproduced as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 381 of 2011, under Sections 498-A & 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.

It is a case of dowry death. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The victim died an unnatural death within a very short span of time after her marriage i.e. about one year. There is specific allegation of demand of dowry and consequential ill treatment.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim had committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her and the applicant made an effort for her rescue due to which he also received burn injuries. It is further submitted that in this case some other family members were also arrayed as accused persons, however, during investigation, their involvement was found to be false. Learned A.G.A. has opposed prayer for bail.

Perusal of the record shows that the incident had taken place in the intervening night of 22/23-5-2014 and the applicant was medically examined after about eight days of the incident on 1.6.2014. During this period he remained absconding.

It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that there is no dying declaration of the deceased