This is the second bail application by Ramraj in a case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The High Court rejected the bail prayer, holding it is not a fit case, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Bail application rejected; trial 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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27491 of 2020
Applicant :- Ramraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Counter affidavit has been filed today, which is kept on record.
This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Mohd. Tahir, J. on 09.05.2016 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14468 of 2016.
Heard Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This second bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.544 of 2015, registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has been intentionally dragged in the present case. He further contended that no new facts has come out except the detention period of applicant, which is more than 6 years. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2015. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and direct evidence is against the applicant. Seven witnesses have been examined in the case and there is chances that trial may be concluded in near future, as such, the bail application of the applicant may be rejected.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking to seriousness and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, I do not find it is a fit case for bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Ramraj, involved in Case Crime No.544 of 2015, registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar is hereby rejected at this stage.
However, the trial court is directed to decide the trial of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Nitin Verma
Ramraj
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
