HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 29006 of 2019
Applicant :- Chhote @ Sitaram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned Brief Holders for the State and perused the material available on record.
By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.460 of 2017 (Session Trial No. 399 of 2018), under Sections – 323, 325, 498A, 304B SectionI.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Jahangirabad, District – Bulandshahr.
Claim of the applicant is that in this case, the informant side has not itself supported the claim made in the F.I.R. and the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 recorded shows that they have disowned the allegations allegedly made by them in the F.I.R. regarding dowry demand and dowry death. In view of the categorical testimony, the case of the applicant is self-evident and it cannot be said that the applicant being the husband of the deceased has committed any offence or demanded any dowry. He is a law abiding citizen and in case, applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. Applicant is languishing in jail since 1.11.2017.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case admittedly, the death is unnatural and is caused within seven years of the marriage and the cause of death is shown to be due to asphyxia, besides circumstances leading to death are intriguing, under facts and circumstances of this case, the fact of cruelty need no discussion at this stage. Insofar as the relevant papers of the prosecution case and the statement on record is considered, then overwhelmingly the culpability of the applicant is very much established and it will not make any difference, if any prosecution witness of fact has been won over and they are deposing in favour of the applicant. Statement of the rest of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded and the trial court has ample power under Section-311 SectionCr.P.C. to call any witness for examination. Proper scrutiny of evidence is to be done by the trial court. No conclusive inference can be drawn at this stage regarding testimony of any prosecution witness. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said conclusively that things have been settled in the way claimed by the applicant.
Considered the rival submissions, perused the material brought on record and the enormity of the offence. No good ground is made out for bail.
Consequently, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding of the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it, if there is no legal impediment in its way.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019
S Rawat
