Allahabad High Court
Mahboob Alam vs State Of U.P. on 6 September, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31322 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahboob Alam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manu Sharma,Dinesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 111 of 2016, under sections 304B, 498A and 201 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Shyamdeurwa, district-Maharajganj, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
The first information report was lodged by the informant about dowry death of his sister against his brother-in-law and his other family members. It was mentioned in the FIR that sister of the informant was married with present accused on 20.2.2016 as per Muslim rites and the informant had given sufficient dowry but the present accused was not happy with the given dowry and he was demanding a pulsar motorcycle from the daughter of the informant. On 8.4.2016 the sister of the informant was beaten and an information was given to the informant that his sister had gone somewhere else. The dead body of the deceased was found in village-Laxmipur Bhatgawan in a wheat field, which was identified by the informant as his sister.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that five witness of the fact have been examined during trial. Only formal witnesses remain to be examined. There is no likelihood of the conviction of the applicant who is the husband of the deceased in the present case. He lastly submits that the applicant has no reported criminal antecedent and is in jail since 16.4.2016, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that since the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and a very heavy burden is cast upon the defence to explain the circumstances under which the deceased had died which the applicant has failed to discharge satisfactory at this stage. The applicant is the husband and hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
After having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, this Court does not find it proper to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 6.9.2022
Faridul
