HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 13th October, 2008 2nd Bail Application No. 622 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Arun Kumar …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite Party ____________________________________________________________ Case Crime No. 87 of 2007 U/s 304-B I.P.C. Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicants; Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for respondent/State; and perused the record. The First Bail Application moved by the applicant was dismissed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 3rd March, 2008 with the observation that the trial court would conclude the main prosecution witnesses before 31st May, 2008. If it was not done, the applicant would be at liberty to approach this court again in the first week of June, 2008 and if the directions are not complied with, the applicant would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application in the trial court immediately on the conclusion of the recording of the main prosecution evidence. Thereafter, the 2nd bail application was moved by the learned counsel for the applicant. The 2nd bail application was listed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the Hon’ble the Chief Justice has directed that this bail application be listed before the regular bench hearing the bail application, so this application was listed before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The counter affidavit filed by the State reveals that the prosecution produced Kailash Singh PW1 before 31st May, 2008 in compliance of the order of the Court. The examination-in-chief of the said witness was recorded and the trial court took cognizance against certain other accused persons u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and processes have been issued against other co-accused who have been summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. After the subsequent development arising out of taking cognizance of other accused, the trial is still pending. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the statement filed alongwith the counter affidavit of Kailash Singh PW1, father of the deceased, Smt. Kamlesh Devi, mother of the deceased and other witnesses. Perusal of the record reveals that Maruti car has been demanded by the accused/applicant; and the death occurred after 2 months and 8 days of the marriage. Under these circumstances, I do not deem it fit and proper to release the accused/applicant on bail during the trial. It was brought to my notice that few of the accused who have been summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. have not appeared before the court concerned and few of the accused have appeared before the court concerned. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the accused persons who are present before the court below and proceed with the trial expeditiously preferably within three months from today. The case of the rest of the accused who are not appearing be separated and comply the direction of this court within the stipulated period as contained in para 3 of the earlier bail order. Thereafter, the accused would be at liberty to file the bail petition before the trial court which shall be considered by the trial court as directed in the first bail order. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed with the above observations. Urgency application Nos. 2059 of 2008 and 2303 of 2008 are disposed of. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 13.10.2008 Shiv