Rahul Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko

Court No. - 8 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2527 of 2023 Applicant :- Rahul Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh,Maharaj Baksh Singh,Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, as well as Mr. Manish V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on this 2nd application for bail, and gone through the entire record.

¶2By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0187 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act lodged at Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

¶3The earlier bail application of the accused-applicant, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.506 of 2020, is said to have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2022, which reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.

¶2By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0187 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act lodged at Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

¶3The deceased, Snehlata got married with the accused-applicant; marriage took place on 27.01.2019; on 06.07.2019, the deceased got killed at around 9 p.m; the postmortem report suggest the following antemortem injuries, which caused the death:- "i. stab wound 1cm x 1cm, 7cm below from Rt. clavicle over the Rt side cavities deep, wound elepticle in save manger shamp; ii. stab wound 1cm x 5cm Rt side chest, 7cm below from injury no. 1; iii. stab wound 1cm x 5cm on Lt side chest 2cm below from Lt elbow. All wounds elapticle in sope clear margin; and iv. stab wound on dorsum of Lt hand muscle deep elapticle in sabe clear margins."

¶4Admittedly, the accused-applicant was accompanying the deceased when she was killed. During the course of investigation, it has come to light that it was the accused-applicant who had killed the deceased. The injuries, allegedly caused to the accused-applicant, are manufactured. Considering the heinousness of the offence where helpless wife of the accused-applicant got killed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby rejected. However, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date certified copy of this order is submitted/served on behalf of the accused-applicant."

¶4I find no new/fresh ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. Therefore, the bail plea is hereby refused, and the application is rejected. However, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, say within a period of six months from the date certified copy of this order is submitted/served, subject to full cooperation by the accused-applicant. However, if despite full cooperation by the accused-applicant the trial is not concluded within the said period, the accused-applicant may revive his bail plea. [D.K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 6.7.2023 MVS/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench