HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 19558 of 2018
Applicant :- Dharmraj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pande
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Ved Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant – Dharmraj with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 874 of 2017, under Sections 302, Section498A, Section504, Section506 IPC, Police Station – Rasra, District – Ballia, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of murder, demand of dowry, criminal intimidation etc., punishable with life imprisonment or death;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 07.08.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 08.08.2017;
(iii) according to the FIR allegation, the applicant had assaulted the victim, who was his wife, with a heavy axe and caused fatal injuries in her neck area and other parts of the body. Also, according to the FIR, the assault had taken place at the maternal home of the deceased where the applicant had visited her;
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cause of death of the victim was not the injuries suffered by her but a cardiopulmonary arrest. Also, it has been submitted, though the victim had survived for almost a week, her statement had not been recorded. It has also been submitted that there is no dying declaration of the victim.
5. Next, it has been submitted that the applicant is a manual labourer and that, in any case, the incident had taken place at the spur of the moment, wherein certain injuries may have been caused to the victim, however, there was no intention to cause death.
6. On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that the injury report itself shows that injury no.1 had been caused on the skull and was a grievous hurt, as may result in the death. The fact that the victim had survived for one week, may not therefore be relevant. Also, at present, it is not clear that whether the victim was in her senses after the assault and before she died.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, besides the injury report which brings out, atleast on prima facie basis, a grievous hurt as may also result in the death, it is also a fact that the trial has remained pending for more than two years. The status of the trial has not been brought on record.
8. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the injuries suffered by the deceased, relationship between the parties and other allegations made in the FIR, the present application for bail is rejected at this stage.
9. However, the liberty of the applicant may not be kept hanging in lurch for an indefinite period of time. The trial has remained pending for a long time. Accordingly, though the prayer for bail has been rejected, it is expected that the trial court may make all efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C., such that the trial may be concluded preferably within a period of nine months from today.
Order Date :- 4.12.2019