AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
perused the documents on record.
The petitioner has been made accused in Sadar P.S.Case
No.124 of 2005, corresponding to G.R.No.392 of 2005 [S.T.No.94 of
2016] registered under Sections 304-B/34 IPC .
The learned APP has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
Referring to orders granting bail to the parents of the
petitioner vide order dated 01.03.2017 in B.A. No.10588/2016, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is in
judicial custody since 29.08.2016, and who was previously granted
bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C . which subsequently was cancelled in
Cr.Rev.No.05/2005, however, during the said period the petitioner did
not misuse the privilege of bail, is entitled for grant of bail. Pursuant
to order passed by this Court, status of S.T. No.94/2016 has been
received in the Court. It is stated that out of 7 witnesses, prosecution
has already examined 4 witnesses. The petitioner is the husband of
the victim lady. Order dated 01.03.2017 by which his parents were
granted bail records "the main allegation is against co-accused Arun
Prajapati (the husband of the deceased)". Evidently, no benefit of
order granting bail to parents of the petitioner can be extended to the
petitioner. Moreover, having noticed the advance stage of trial, I am
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the Trial
Judge shall take prompt steps, if necessary coercive steps against the
official witnesses including, an order of suspension of their salary for
securing their attendance during the trial.