However, efforts are being made to record the remaining prosecution vs Similarly, in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jitendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. This is the third bail application filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2021, under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5579 of 2023. The second bail application was also rejected vide order dated 02.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4747 of 2024.

4. As per the allegations in the First Information Report, the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 20.06.2014. A few days after the marriage, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty. A complaint was lodged by the informant at the police station. Subsequently, a compromise was entered into between the parties. However, after a few days, she was again assaulted. Despite repeated efforts by the complainant to resolve the matter, the accused continued 2 to demand dowry. It is alleged that on 12.06.2021, the applicant and his family members killed the informant’s daughter and hanged her body.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that six out of sixteen prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The mother of the deceased, examined as PW-3, has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the mother is a natural witness, yet she did not support the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2021 and more than three years and ten months have elapsed, yet even half of the witnesses have not been produced before the trial court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail application. It is submitted that an earlier FIR No. 0279 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was also registered against the applicant. They further contend that this is a heinous offence, and six antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given. The deceased died within seven years of her marriage due to dowry demands.

7. Perused the record. This Court, while deciding the first bail application, had already considered the merits of the matter. It is not in dispute that the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2021. It is also not disputed that only 6 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined, and PW-3, the mother of the deceased, has been declared hostile.

8. A perusal of the report submitted by the learned trial court reveals that the earlier Presiding Officer remained on leave on multiple occasions when the matter was fixed for the evidence of PW- 4 over eight consecutive dates. The officer met with a car accident and remained on continuous leave after 23.04.2024. He resumed charge on

23.08.2024, and since then, the case has been fixed for recording prosecution evidence. The prosecution witnesses remained absent on 3 more than three occasions, and the Presiding Officer was also on leave for three hearing dates. Summons have been issued several times to the inquest witness, but he has failed to appear before the Court. However, efforts are being made to record the remaining prosecution evidence.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another (2022) 18 SCC 182 in paragraph 6 has considered the period of custody undergone by the accused and, without commenting on the merits, granted bail.

10. Similarly, in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paragraph 17 is extracted below:- "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

11. In the case of Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, SLP (Crl.) No. 8523 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 7, held as under: "An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

12. In this case also the Court has noticed that the prosecution has failed to produce its witnesses before the trial court on various dates. The Court is required to balance the right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial vis-à-vis the right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4

13. Considering the facts that PW-3, a key witness, has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile; only 6 out of 16 witnesses have been examined; the trial has not made significant progress even after nearly four years and in view of the pronouncements (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly, the third bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant, Ramveer, be released on bail in Crime No. 325 of 2021, under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate any prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking before the trial court to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present. In case of default, the trial court may treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued against him for securing his presence, and he fails to appear on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings under Section 5 174-A IPC in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5579 of 2023. The second bail application was also rejected vide order dated 02.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4747 of 2024.

4. As per the allegations in the First Information Report, the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 20.06.2014. A few days after the marriage, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty. A complaint was lodged by the informant at the police station. Subsequently, a compromise was entered into between the parties. However, after a few days, she was again assaulted. Despite repeated efforts by the complainant to resolve the matter, the accused continued 2 to demand dowry. It is alleged that on 12.06.2021, the applicant and his family members killed the informant’s daughter and hanged her body.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that six out of sixteen prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The mother of the deceased, examined as PW-3, has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the mother is a natural witness, yet she did not support the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2021 and more than three years and ten months have elapsed, yet even half of the witnesses have not been produced before the trial court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail application. It is submitted that an earlier FIR No. 0279 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was also registered against the applicant. They further contend that this is a heinous offence, and six antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given. The deceased died within seven years of her marriage due to dowry demands.

7. Perused the record. This Court, while deciding the first bail application, had already considered the merits of the matter. It is not in dispute that the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2021. It is also not disputed that only 6 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined, and PW-3, the mother of the deceased, has been declared hostile.

8. A perusal of the report submitted by the learned trial court reveals that the earlier Presiding Officer remained on leave on multiple occasions when the matter was fixed for the evidence of PW- 4 over eight consecutive dates. The officer met with a car accident and remained on continuous leave after 23.04.2024. He resumed charge on

23.08.2024, and since then, the case has been fixed for recording prosecution evidence. The prosecution witnesses remained absent on 3 more than three occasions, and the Presiding Officer was also on leave for three hearing dates. Summons have been issued several times to the inquest witness, but he has failed to appear before the Court. However, efforts are being made to record the remaining prosecution evidence.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another (2022) 18 SCC 182 in paragraph 6 has considered the period of custody undergone by the accused and, without commenting on the merits, granted bail.

10. Similarly, in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2024) 9 SCC 813, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paragraph 17 is extracted below:- "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

11. In the case of Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, SLP (Crl.) No. 8523 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 7, held as under: "An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

12. In this case also the Court has noticed that the prosecution has failed to produce its witnesses before the trial court on various dates. The Court is required to balance the right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial vis-à-vis the right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4

13. Considering the facts that PW-3, a key witness, has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile; only 6 out of 16 witnesses have been examined; the trial has not made significant progress even after nearly four years and in view of the pronouncements (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly, the third bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant, Ramveer, be released on bail in Crime No. 325 of 2021, under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate any prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking before the trial court to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present. In case of default, the trial court may treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued against him for securing his presence, and he fails to appear on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings under Section 5 174-A IPC in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench