Allahabad High Court
Pramod Prajapati vs State Of U.P. on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9642 of 2022
Applicant :- Pramod Prajapati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This is second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12254 of 2021 (Pramod Prajapati vs. State of U.P.).
This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Pramod Prajapati, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 108 of 2020, under Section 304-B, 323, 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Parsamalik, District Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the trial in the present matter has started in which the statement of Dhamendra Prajapati was recorded as P.W.-1 who is the brother of the deceased Smt. Amitra. It is argued that the said witness had not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, a copy of the said statement has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Anneuxre-4 to the affidavit. It is argued that as such looking to the statement of the said witness, the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. It is argued that the first informant Jairam Prajapati has died and as such he could not be produced before the trial court. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 08.09.2020 and as of now only one prosecution witness has been examined.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail of the applicant has been rejected on merits by a detailed order passed by this Court. It is argued that the trial court vide order dated 27.09.2021 has framed charges against the applicant under Sections 498-A I.P.C., 304-B I.P.C. with an alternative charge under Sections 302 I.P.C., 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is argued that trial is under progress and there are other witnesses to be examined. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial. It is argued that looking to the fact that trial has started and the first bail of the applicant was rejected on merits and further that there is no fresh and new ground pleaded and argued, the bail application of the applicant be rejected.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by a detailed order by this Court. The sole witness examined till date who is Dhamendra Prajapati is the witness of the inquest. There are other witnesses to be examined as is evident from the charge-sheet which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. This Court does not find any fresh and new ground in the present second bail application.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.
It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339-340 of 2014 (judgment dated 06.02.2022), subject to any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
