The Hon'ble Court rejected the second bail application filed by Utkarsh Agrawal in a case involving Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Despite arguments regarding delay and non-attendance at the scene, the judge was not inclined to allow the application at this stage.
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. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8536 of 2021
Applicant :- Utkarsh Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Raghav Dev Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Praveen Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while no conclusion of fact is required to be drawn at this stage and none is indicated by this order, all fact issues would remain to be tested on the basis of evidence that may be led at the trial. The applicant being husband of the deceased, at present, in the state of the case-diary, as has been relied by the parties and as noted above, the applicant is not entitled to bail, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, rejection of the bail application may never result in indefinite curtailment of the liberty of the applicant. In normal circumstances, the Court would have fixed short time frame for conclusion of trial itself, however, on account of the prevailing lockdown arising from the pandemic Covid-19, such timeline is not being provided by this order. At the same time, immediately upon restoration of the normalcy, learned trial court would take up the matter with utmost urgency and seek to conduct and conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment.
8. Needless to add, if for some reason, the trial remained pending for a period of one year, despite full cooperation by the applicant, he will be at liberty to file a fresh bail application."
of the first bail application and though the applicant has remained confined for more than two years during which period he has wholly cooperated in the investigation and now at the trial, in the prevailing circumstances, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.
not inclined to allow the application, at this stage.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the second bail application after more than a year since the rejection of the first application.
Whether the delay in conclusion of the trial justifies the grant of bail despite previous rejections.
Utkarsh Agrawal
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
