This court rejected the bail application of Arvind, accused in a dowry death case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, holding that the gravity of the offence and the advanced stage of the trial preclude release. The court directed the trial to conclude within four months.
Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45880 of 2015 Applicant :- Arvind
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble N.A. Moonis,J.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Arvind in case Crime No. 543 of 2014, under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, police station Nigohi, district Shahjahanpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being the husband of the deceased has been implicated in the present case with the allegation that on account of non fulfilment of demand of dowry she was done to death by the applicant and his parents by administering her some poisonous substance. The entire allegation made in the first information report is absolutely false and vague. The marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu customs and rite and there was cordial relation of the applicant with his wife. He has further submitted that the victim was putting pressure upon the applicant to live separately and when the applicant has not paid any heed to her demand, she has ended her life by taking some poisonous substance. Viscera report indicates that aluminium phosphide was found. The Doctor has not found any injury over her body, which completely shows that she has committed suicide by consuming poison.
The trial is at the fag end. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.5.2015. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that when the trial is at the fag end the applicant may not be released on bail. The applicant is the husband of
the deceased and his wife was brutally assaulted by the applicant and thereafter she was given some poisonous substance. The applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. as the wife of the applicant has been done to death at her matrimonial house in mysterious circumstances within a short span of time and the trial is at the fag end, this court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Looking into the gravity of the offence, the bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the case with utmost expeditious and conclude the trial preferably within a period of four months without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either parties on production of the certified copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Shahjahanpur within a week through FAX for compliance.
Order Date :- 20.9.2018
Shahnawaz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the husband of a deceased wife, charged with dowry death, should be granted bail when the trial is at the fag end.
Whether the trial court should conclude the trial within a specific timeframe to ensure justice.
Whether the specific allegation of suicide by poison justifies releasing the accused on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind
N.A. Moonis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
