HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 47721 of 2017
Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar @ Bittu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad,Chandra Bhan Singh,Krishan Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.119 of 2017, under Sections 498A, Section304B, Section316 I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah.
Urge made on behalf of the applicant is confined to the ambit that in this case, the applicant has not committed any offence, he has been roped in falsely in this case on account of fact he happens to be husband of the deceased. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Fact is that the deceased was having some personal cause for committing the suicide after writing suicidal note. The language of the suicidal note is quite appreciable at this stage because she has not castigated any remark against the applicant regarding any offence having been committed upon her. There is no worthy reason for causing dowry death. No demand of dowry was ever raised by the applicant. Allegations are general and vague. It so happened that after inquest report was prepared by the police, the first information report was immediately lodged by the father of the deceased. In case the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 25.02.2017.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that in this case, theory mooted by the suicidal note cannot be accepted at this stage because the suicidal note was neither part of the investigation nor was it so taken. The statement of the informant is specific regarding demand of dowry and repeated torture meted out to the deceased due to which she committed suicide. All the ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. are staring at the applicant and there is no way at this stage that he can escape the presumption raised by application of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No doubt, the applicant is husband and he is prime accused in such case.
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