Shyam Shankar Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for the State and gone though the impugned judgment and order.
(2.) BOTH these appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.17), Agra. Therefore, the prayer for bail is being considered simultaneously by a common order. Both these appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants Ramesh Chandra, Smt. Sharda Rani and Deepak Sagar against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.17), Agra in S.T. No. 918 of 2005 (Case Crime No. 132 of 2005) State Vs. Deepak Sagar and others whereby, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused appellants guilty under section 304(B), 498A I.P.C and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Consequently, he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for different terms of imprisonment including fine amounting to Rs. 5,000/ - and Rs. 2,000/ - each along with default stipulation for the aforesaid offences.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that he does not press the bail application of Deepak Sagar at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant Deepak Sagar is rejected as not pressed. As regards the bail application of the appellants Ramesh Chandra and Smt. Sharda Rani, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that only general allegations have been made against them. No specific role has been assigned to these appellants in this incident. The allegations were made regarding demand of Rs. one lac by Prakash Sagar (Dever )of the victim, who had already been granted bail by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J. on 23.11.2011. It is further submitted that there are two FIRs in this case and the second FIR is hit by the provisions under Section 162 Cr.P.C. In the first FIR dated 12.5.2005 there was no allegation of dowry demand or murder or dowry death of the victim nor any allegation was made against the appellants. After three days another FIR has been lodged in which allegation of dowry demand and dowry death has been made which apparently shows improvement and manipulations in the facts of the case by the complainant. Admittedly, up to the date of marriage there was no dowry demand by any of the appellants or in -laws of the victim. There are material contradictions and variations in the prosecution story, which cannot be relied upon. The appellants were on bail during the trial and they have not misused the liberty of bail. There is no hope of early disposal of the appeal and the appellants should not be detained in jail for an indefinite period. The appellants are already in jail for the last more than one year. Their case is at par with Coaccused appellant Prakash Sagar, who has already been granted bail earlier.;