The Single Judge rejected the bail application filed by Firoz Ansari in a case involving dowry death. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial within six months, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
Bail prayer rejected; trial directed to be concluded within six 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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19734 of 2019
Applicant :- Firoz Ansari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav,Ganesh Mani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Firoz Ansari with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali Padrauna, District-Kushinagar during the pendency of the trial.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations made in the first information report dated 27.2.2016, that on 26.2.2016 on account of dowry demand, the applicant and other family member caused death to the daughter of the first informant namely Sabrun Nisha. The applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail,
the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 28.3.2016.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. The burden to proof regarding the innocence of the applicant, which is required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, remains discharged. It is lastly submitted that in compliance of the order dated 10.5.2019 a report has been placed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 2nd Kushinagar, Padrauna that five witnesses have been examined. Since, the witnesses are not coming to get themselves examined, therefore, delay is being caused in the conclusion of the Trial in spite of processes being issued by the concerned Court as well as the letter to S.P. Kushinagar, the witnesses are not appearing before the Trial Court for evidence. As such, it is urged that instead of considering the bail application of the applicant, the interest of justice shall better be served in case the trial itself is directed to be expedited by this Court.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004, if there is no legal impediment. If possible, the trial court shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis.
Office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the court concerned within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Neeraj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the accused in a dowry death case should be allowed or rejected.
Whether the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & AnotherReferred¶11
AIR 2018 (SC) 2004 · Who else cites this
Firoz Ansari
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
