Satesh Kumar vs. State Of U.P.

Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7009 of 2021

Applicant :- Satesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mazhar Ullah,Rizwan Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants involved in Case Crime No. 282 of 2017, under Sections 498- A, 304-B IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad, with prayer to enlarge him on bail.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of deceased and that he has not committed any offence. The marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place in the year 2015. The allegation that applicant used to harass the deceased on account of dowry is absolutely false and baseless. It was argued that in fact deceased has sustained injuries on her head due to fall from the roof and that the applicant has not caused any injury to her. It has been further submitted that during trial three witnesses including complainant have already been examined and they have not supported the prosecution version and that applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2017.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that as the deceased was living with applicant and she has sustained injuries at her matrimonial home, thus the burden is on applicant to explain that how the deceased has sustained injury but he has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation. The deceased has died due to antimortem head injuries.

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Hence the bail application is hereby rejected.

However, considering the period of incarceration of applicant and also the fact that three witnesses, including complainant, have already been examined, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no other impediment.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

Order Date: 15.7.2022 M. Tarik