Granting the bail to the v. State of Maharashtra and Anoth

2. Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant appearing from the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.187 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Titawi, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application of the applicant. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 06.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28982 of 2020.

5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about eleven months before the incident. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-, thereby set her ablaze on 23.06.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. It is true that victim sustained 95 % burn injuries but applicant himself tried to extinguish the fire due to which he also got burn injuries and he himself got treated at the same hospital. The documents of the said treatment has been annexed with the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that trial is moving at a snail's pace, as such, there is no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future as only five witnesses have been examined till date.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.07.2019, as such, applicant is incarcerated for more than six years and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. This Court had called for status report from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 08.08.2025, five witnesses have been examined till date.

9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

10. In the case of AIR 1927 Nag 53 – Tularam v. King-Emperor the Court clarified that "death or transportation for life" in S.497 CrPC means offences with both as alternatives. Magistrates have discretion to grant bail; delays in trial weighed in favour of release. Bail granted as accused unlikely to abscond.

11. Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed:

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.

9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: "What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."

2. Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant appearing from the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.187 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Titawi, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the second bail application of the applicant. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 06.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28982 of 2020.

5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about eleven months before the incident. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-, thereby set her ablaze on 23.06.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. It is true that victim sustained 95 % burn injuries but applicant himself tried to extinguish the fire due to which he also got burn injuries and he himself got treated at the same hospital. The documents of the said treatment has been annexed with the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that trial is moving at a snail's pace, as such, there is no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future as only five witnesses have been examined till date.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.07.2019, as such, applicant is incarcerated for more than six years and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. This Court had called for status report from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 08.08.2025, five witnesses have been examined till date.

9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

10. In the case of AIR 1927 Nag 53 – Tularam v. King-Emperor the Court clarified that "death or transportation for life" in S.497 CrPC means offences with both as alternatives. Magistrates have discretion to grant bail; delays in trial weighed in favour of release. Bail granted as accused unlikely to abscond.

11. Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed:

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.

9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: "What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."