SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahfooz @ Sheru vs State Of U.P. on 27 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 1558 of 2020

Applicant :- Mahfooz @ Sheru

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Khalil

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Khalil, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, 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 – Mahfooz @ Sheru with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. – 64 of 2017, under Sections – 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station – Adalhat, District – Mirzapur, during pendency of trial.

3. This is a second bail application filed by the present applicant. First bail application has been dismissed for want for prosecution with the following order dated 26.11.2019:

“1. List revised. None is present to press this application. Learned AGA is present.

2. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.”

4. The present application has been filed by the applicant contending that he has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that his wife died within three years of her marriage. First, it has been submitted, the postmortem report clearly suggests suicidal hanging as the cause of death, inasmuch as, there was a gapin the ligature mark at the back of the neck clearly, recorded in the postmortem report. Second, it has been submitted, though the marriage between the parties had been performed on 6.4.2014, there was no previous conduct or complaint of demand of dowry made against the applicant for a period of three years. Third, it has been submitted, the deceased committed suicide because of her illness, which could not be cured despite continuous efforts made by the applicant to get her treated at his own cost. Fourth, it has been submitted, neither in the panchnama nor in the postmortem report, there are any external injury recorded, which clearly suggests occurrence as suicidal hanging.

5. The bail application of the applicant has been opposed by learned AGA, who would submit, since the death took place due to unnatural cause within three years of the marriage of the deceased, the presumption in law exists against the present applicant. In that regard, reference has also been made to the submission of the father of the deceased, who has clearly made allegation of demand of dowry against the applicant. As to the postmortem report and the panchnama, it has been submitted that, at present, the postmortem report suggests occurrence of strangulation, inasmuch as, hyoid bone as also thyroid were found fractured.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, no case for bail is made out at this stage, inasmuch as, besides the facts indicated in the postmortem report, it was not a necessary concomitant of the offence with which the applicant is being charged with that external injury must necessarily be proved. Also, it has to be noted that, though the trial has remained pending for some time and the statement of three witnesses have been recorded, there is no inconsistency yet claimed as may entitle the applicant to be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly the bail application is rejected.

8. However, rejection of the bail application may not invite any indefinite detention of the applicant as he has already been in confinement for almost three years. It is observed that the trial court shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today. Also, the trial court may keep in mind the principle contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. to ensure that the trial may be concluded within time indicated above.

Order Date :- 27.2.2020

Prakhar

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation