Allahabad High Court
Chandra Bhan Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 7 September, 2020
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2856 of 2020 Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhav Prakash Tripathi,Yanendra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. V. P. Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. This is the second bail application. His first bail application has been rejected on merit vide order dated 05.12.2020.
3. This second application for bail has been filed by applicant-Chandra Bhan Yadav, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 256 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Pipraich, District-Gorakhpur during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and is in jail since 21.09.18. The applicant has been under incarceration for a period of almost two years. It is next contended that this Court while deciding first bail application of the applicant vide order dated 05.12.2018 had directed that trial of case be concluded within a period of one year. However, the same has not yet been concluded. According to the learned counsel for applicant upto this stage only one of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the cross-version has been going on. On the aforesaid factual position, it is contended that the applicant is liable to be released on bail.
5. Par contra, learned A.G.A. contends that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The deceased died on account of strangulation. The applicant is under statutory burden by virtue of Section 113-B Cr.P.C. to explain his innocence but applicant has failed to discharge this burden up to this stage. Learned A.G.A. further submits that non-conclusion of trial within a period of one year as directed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2018 by itself cannot be ground sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of the order-sheet of pending sessions trial, this Court is of the view that since session trial has not been decided as directed by this Court, cannot be a ground to release the applicant on bail.
7. The second bail application of applicant is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 7.9.2020 YK