Allahabad High Court
Chandra Prakash vs State Of U.P. on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27095 of 2020
Applicant :- Chandra Prakash
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Harikrishna Rajesh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Jaswant Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hari Krishna Rajesh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.7.2019.
5. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.423 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghosi, District Mau with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
6. No new ground is there for bail except the period of incarceration. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that all the witnesses have not supported the prosecution story during their cross-examination as such there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. It is also argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is languishing in jail since 9.5.2015.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that this has become a practice nowadays that witnesses are somehow or other won over later on and the case is adjourned. All the witnesses of fact have been later on cross-examined after an inordinate delay and as such they have resiled from their statements recorded earlier. The deceased has died within the precincts of the house of applicant as a result of burn injuries and the onus lies on the applicant to explain it as provided under Section 113-B and 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the evidence on record, as the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of FIR in the examination-in-chief, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order or as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
Vikas
