Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Dowry Death Accused In View Of Poor Progress Of Trial

The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted bail to a dowry death accused (in jail for about 6 years) in view of the poor progress of the trial in the case.

The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed was essentially dealing with the second bail application of one Kuldeep in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case in brief

His first bail plea was rejected vide order dated April 16, 2019. The instant second bail plea was filed only on the ground that the applicant is in jail for about 6 years yet the trial has not been concluded.

He submitted in her plea that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the charge sheet had been filed on October 01, 2016, and further submitted that it will take much time for the conclusion of the trial.

He relied upon Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that if the accused person is in jail for a substantially long period and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, the bail application may be considered.

His counsel further touched upon the circumstances that led to his false implication in the case. It was also assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.

On being confronted on the point about the progress of trial and period of incarceration, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that this being a matter of record, therefore, he has nothing to say.

Court's observations 

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, at the very outset, the Court expressed its anguish towards the poor progress of the trial.

"The trial must have been concluded by now and the learned trial court is having powers to take a coercive method to conclude the trial and is also armed with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court is unable to comprehend as to how there is no good progress in the trial...," the Court further remarked.

However, considering the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of an early conclusion of the trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, and considering that the applicant is in jail since August 2016 and the fact that the trial has not yet been concluded and out of 18 witnesses only 2 witnesses have been examined, the Court was of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer for bail was granted and the application was allowed.

Case title - Kuldeep Second Bail v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8561 of 2019]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 336

Click here To Read/Download Order