Ravindra vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7774 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5001 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Ravindra
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Piyush Patel
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Rohit Dueby, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Trial No.571 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 21.11.2021. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- leading her to death on 22.5.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death was observed to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging as such the applicant is not at all responsible for it. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant was engaged in a private job at Ludhiana as such the victim used to ask him to take alongwith him and on being refused she committed suicide. Learned counsel has stated that the FIR is delayed by four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.5.2022, having no criminal antecedents to his credit. Learned counsel has further stated that co-accused persons who are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased person have already been enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant and other co-accused persons had fled from the scene of occurrence and were not present at the time of inquest proceedings and none of them are member of the inquest proceedings. It is mentioned in the FIR that after conducting the last rites of his daughter the informant had come to the police station to lodge the FIR as such the delay in lodging the FIR stands explained.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant is the main accused person and was not present at the house when the informant had reached there as also the fact that the family members were not present at the time of inquest proceedings, 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, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year 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 :- 17.3.2023

Vikas