Held bail application rejected. While noting prolonged incarceration (over 1 year 8 months), dismissed relief due to trial pendency. Directed District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, to conclude trial with expedition within one year, subject to accused's cooperation.
No bail granted. Direction issued to trial court to conclude the trial 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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38221 of 2021
Applicant :- Jeetu @ Ravendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M.P.S. Chauhan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Jeetu @ Ravendra Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2020, under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Harduaganj, District Aligarh during pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that marriage of applicant was solemnized with Aneeta on 27.2.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. However, just after expiry of a period of four months and seven days from the date of marriage of applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 19.6.2020 in which, the wife of applicant namely Aneeta died as she committed suicide.
Subsequently, a delayed F.I.R. dated 20.6.2020 was lodged by first informant Chainman (father of the deceased) which was registered as Case Crime No. 126 of 2020, under Sections 498A and 304-B I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, P.S.Harduaganj, District Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely Jeetu, Shanti Dev, Ravi Kumar, Sunhari Lal and Savitri Devi have been nominated as named accused.
After completion of investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number, ultimately Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 30.7.2020, whereby applicant Jeetu (husband), Shanti Dev (mother-in-law) and Sunhari Lal (fatherin-law) of the deceased have been charge-sheeted, whereas other two named accused have been exculpated.
After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by concerned Magistrate. As offence complained of is triable by court of Sessions, concerned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No.
2605 of 2020 (State Vs. Jeetu and others) under Section 498A and 304B I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Harduaganj, District Aligarh came to be registered.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that though applicant is the husband of the deceased and also named as well as chargesheet accused but he is innocent. It is then contended that the trial has commenced and up to this stage five prosecution witnesses of fact have already been examined. The details of the same are as under:
P.W.-1- Chainman, P.W.2- Smt. Kusum Devi, P.W.-3- Sri Om Prakash, P.W.-4 Shri Naresh and P.W.- 5 Smt. Pooja W/o Naresh.
Learned counsel for applicant further submits that prosecution witnesses of fact namely P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, i.e., the first informant and mother of deceased have not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. On the aforesaid premise, he submits that applicant be enlarged on bail. It is then contended that the applicant has clean antecedent inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is jail since 21.6.2020. As such, he has undergone more than one year and eight months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He contends that the though this Court is a superior Court but dictates of prudence require that the evidence which has emerged during the course of trial should not be evaluated by the higher Court as any observation made by the higher court with regard to nature of the evidence that has come up during course of the trial may prejudice the prosecution or the defence. He, therefore, submits that instead of deciding the bail application on merits, interest of justice shall be served, in case a direction is issued to the Court concerned to conclude the trial itself. He further contends that there is no material on record that after the statements of the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined, the charge has been altered by the court below.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court does not find any ground to allow the present bail application.
Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as
noted above, a direction is issued to District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh to decide S.T. No. 2605 of 2020 (State Vs. Jeetu and others) under Section 498A and 304B I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Harduaganj, District Aligarh with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to cooperation of the accused in the trial.
Order Date :- 30.3.2022 CS/-
Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.04.04 11:29:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail explaining the prolonged incarceration period.
Whether a direction be issued to the trial court to expedite the conclusion of the proceeding.
Whether any ground exists to interfere with the bail status or trial proceedings.
Jeetu @ Ravendra Kumar
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
