In a second bail application under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, the court rejected the plea citing the gravity of the offence and lack of grounds for indulgence. The court directed the lower court to conclude the trial within one year, referencing Supreme Court precedents.
Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within one year.
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. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49696 of 2018
Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Sri V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.001 of 2017 under Section 304B, 498A IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Madan Mohan Gate District Agra. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2017.
It is not being disputed that there were no other injuries on the body of the deceased except the head injury. It is also not being disputed that death of within six months of the marriage under unnatural circumstances in the house of the applicant and the applicant is the husband.
Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded preferably, within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 1.5.2019 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a case involving Section 304B IPC, 498A IPC, and 3/4 DP Act given the seriousness of allegations.
Whether the pending trial should be concluded within one year of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinod Kumar v. State of PunjabExplained¶10
2015 (3) SCC 220 · Who else cites this
Hussain and Another v. Union of IndiaExplained¶10
2017 (5) SCC 702 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manish
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
