VISHAL KAILASHPRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a successive bail application preferred by the applicant for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with I.C.R. No.98 of 2012 registered with Amraiwadi Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under sections 498 (A), 306, 114 I.P.C. read with Sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Brief facts, necessary for determining the controversy, are as follow :

(3.) Learned advocate Shri Hemant Raval appearing for the original complainant has supported version of the learned A.P.P. and has also strongly objected to grant of this application. He has pointed out to this Court that the trial has not commenced, much less having progressed substantially. However, this non committal can be attributed to the petitioner's parents who have chosen not to remain present on various dates. He further urged that on 12th July 2013, on an application preferred by the applicant, vide order dated 30th July 2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has directed further investigation under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A period of thirty days has been granted to the investigating officer to comply with such directions. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that it is the conduct of the accused which has delayed both committal as well as further progress in the matter. He, therefore, urged the Court that no discretion can be made available to the applicant in the matter of his enlargement on bail. An order passed by A.C.J.M., Aligadh is also pointed out wherein serious allegations of rape are made against the father-in-law. He urged that these aspects though were averred in the application made under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the investigating agency has not collected further material, while filing the charge-sheet. He also urged that there was harassment continuously meted out to the deceased on account of dowry demands. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2013 (1) SCC 197, where Apex Court has essentially contrasted between further investigation and fresh investigation and held that the delay in trial is if caused by co-accused, advantage thereof cannot be taken by the accused.