Delayed trial does not guarantee bail, especially in grave offenses; the seriousness of accusations necessitates cautious judicial scrutiny and timely prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. This is the second application for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant - Netram with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.324 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barkheda, District Pilibhit.

3. The first bail application of the accused-applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6.6.2023 on merits.

4. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that within three years of marriage, the daughter of the informant was subjected to dowry death by her in-laws including the present accused applicant, who is the husband of the deceased. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that a demand of additional dowry was made to the deceased and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of the aforesaid demand and when the demand was not fulfilled, she was hanged by all her in-laws. F.I.R. was lodged on 5.8.2022 and investigation started which culminated into the charge-sheet and at present the trial is going on.

5. The instant application for grant of bail has been moved on the ground of delayed trial and long incarceration period of the applicant. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been languishing in jail since 26.08.2022. While disposing the first bail application of the applicant, the learned trial court was directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and to conclude the same preferably within a period of one year by this Court but till date trial has not been concluded. In the instant case charge-sheet was submitted on 22.10.2022 and cognizance was taken on 21.11.2022 and after committal of the matter, trial started before the trial court and out of total 30 witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined till date. It is further submitted that the applicant is an undertrial and the prosecution has miserably failed to produce witnesses before the trial court vigilantly and the trial court is also proceeding with the trial in a casual manner resulting into a long incarceration of the applicant without any fault on his part. The trial is delayed unnecessarily, hence, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first application for grant of bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order passed by this Court. The trial started in the year 2023 and at present it is pending for evidence and the trial court is making sincere efforts and taking all the steps to procure the appearance of the witnesses in this case. The evidence of witnesses of fact has been concluded and now trial is pending for recording the evidence of formal witnesses only. The present accused applicant is the husband of the deceased and dowry death of his wife has been caused in his own house by way of hanging and there is ample evidence recorded during the course of trial which attributes the main role of causing dowry death of the deceased, who was the only child of her parents, to her husband, the present accused applicant. It is further submitted that the trial of this case is expected to be decided expeditiously hence, there is no ground to allow the instant bail application and the same is liable to be rejected.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused / applicant and the learned State counsel and perused the record. 8. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is apparent from the perusal of the record