Om Prakash vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 5231 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26026 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Om Prakash
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Purushottam Mani Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.92 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kothibhar, District Maharajganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the husband of the deceased person. Learned counsel has stated that the allegations leveled in the FIR are general in nature against all the accused persons. Learned counsel has further stated that in all seven prosecution witnesses have been examined in court and there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is languishing in jail since 24.4.2020.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end and the applicant is the main accused person. The deceased has expired within the precincts of his house.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the evidence on record as also that the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. 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.

10. 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