Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 421 (GUJ)

Vishal Kailashprasad Sharma v. State of Gujarat

2013-07-19

SONIA GOKANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : Sonia Gokani, J. 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 : 2.1 Marriage of the deceased Rekha was solemnized with the applicant Vishal on 28th January 2008 in accordance with the customs and rituals. Due to persistent demand of dowry by the parents of the present applicant and the applicant himself allegedly physical and mental harassment appears to have been perpetrated, as a result of which, she chose to hang herself on 20th May 2012, resulting into her death. 2.2. A complaint in this regard came to be filed by the mother of the deceased viz., Vidyadevi Brijmohan Sharma with Amraivadi Police Station for the aforementioned offences on 22nd May 2012. The applicant-accused was arrested on 7th July 2012 and on due investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed on 3rd August 2012. Regular bail application, moved before the Sessions Court by the petitioner herein, being Criminal Misc. Application No.3511 of 2012, prior to filing of the charge-sheet, came to be rejected on 25th July 2012. And therefore, applicant preferred regular bail application before this Court, being Criminal Misc. Application No.14939 of 2012. Such application came to be withdrawn on 30th October 2012. However, the applicant was permitted to prefer a fresh application on expiry of six months period, if the trial does not proceed substantially by then, therefore, this application of successive bail. 2.3. Learned advocate Mr. Modi appearing for the applicant has urged that the parents of the present applicant have been alleged of perpetrating cruelty, on account of demand of dowry, however, they both have been given anticipatory bail by the Court. He further urged that in absence of any direct or indirect connection of the present applicant with the crime in question, he is required to be granted regular bail. He further urged that at the time and place of incident, the applicant was not present, and he has been falsely implicated and unless a proximate cause is provided for the committal of the suicide, the applicant cannot be charged of abating commission of the suicide. He further urged that at the time and place of incident, the applicant was not present, and he has been falsely implicated and unless a proximate cause is provided for the committal of the suicide, the applicant cannot be charged of abating commission of the suicide. He further urged that soon before the incident in question, wife had requested for food from-outside and instead of bringing the food of her choice, the applicant had brought popular snacks of the State viz., "Fafra" & "Jalabi" and that possibly has irked her, resulting into her taking the extreme step. He further urged that before the Court at Aligadh [State of Gujarat], the report submitted by the police is indicative of the fact that the deceased was not inclined to stay with her husband and she refused to join her matrimonial home. It is also urged that the contents of the complaint are contrary to the documentary evidence in as much as post-morten report does not indicate anywhere marks of external injuries on the person of the deceased, although, it had been emphasised in the complaint that she was severely beaten up by the applicant and her in-laws, before her commission of suicide. He also urged that a daughter is begotten out of her wedlock and she is now required to be looked-after by the present applicant. 2.4. Apart from the merit of this case, a major emphasis on the part of the learned advocate urging for the prayer of bail is to allow this on account of noncommittal of the case by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the Court of Session. He urged that despite specific provisions made in the Criminal Manual for such committal proceedings to be over sooner as possible, one finds that in the instant case, though the charge-sheet had been laid on 3rd August 2012, till the date, committal proceedings are not done. He also further urged that there are no reasons which could be attributed to the applicant for noncommittal, and therefore also, when the committal proceedings only are not over and there is no likelihood of the Sessions trial being proceeded in the near future, bail is required to be granted to the applicant. Learned advocate also undertook the exercise of pointing out various provisions on the subject for addressing a larger cause. Learned advocate also undertook the exercise of pointing out various provisions on the subject for addressing a larger cause. In support of his arguments on merits, learned advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions : (a) Mansing Popatbhai Hatidarbar Lakhani v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No.6938 of 2008, Decided on 18th June 2008; (b) Rameshchandra C. Soni & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.549 of 1998, Decided on 20th July 2001; (c) Rameshbhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1989 (2) GLH 240 ; (d) Ashaben D/o. Bhursingh Haluji v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2010 (3) GLH 404 ; (e) State of Gujarat v. Kalavatiben Liladhar, Criminal Appeal No.1526 of 2003, Decided on 10th March 2006; (f) Govindbhai Mavjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No.10018 of 2009, Decided on 18th September 2009; (g) Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2008, Decided on 27th February 2008. (h) Dipak Shubashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 134 ; (i) Younus Bin Omer Yafai @ Younusbhai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 365 ; 2.5. While issuing rule to the otherside, learned A.P.P. Shri R.C. Kodekar has been particularly asked to furnish details of the cases pertaining to last one year, where committal proceedings are not over. A detailed exercise has been undertaken by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and a list of entire State is brought on the record, which particularly indicates the date for the period between 1st January 2012 to 31st March 2013; as per the Chart, charge-sheets filed in Sessions triable cases by the investigating agency were in total 2349. Out of which, 1804 cases have been committed to the Court of Sessions and 545 cases are yet to be committed. It is further urged that out of these 545 cases, 51 cases are such where muddamal articles have not been submitted to the Court and therefore, committal to the Sessions Court has not been made possible. 2.6. By way of affidavit-in-reply, the opponent-State has urged that four main reasons can be attributed to explain as to why committal proceedings are taking longer. 2.6. By way of affidavit-in-reply, the opponent-State has urged that four main reasons can be attributed to explain as to why committal proceedings are taking longer. It would be profitable to reproduce the same for further consideration in this order : (i) The Investigating agencies has to file the charge-sheet within prescribed time i.e., 60 days or 90 days but in most of the cases, F.S.L. reports and other scientific reports are not received by the investigating agencies within prescribed time and hence, the committal procedure gets affected. (ii) The muddamal are not accepted along with the charge-sheet by the competent court on the ground that there is no space available in the Court to deposit the Muddamal and hence, the muddamal articles are sent back to the investigating agencies and at the time of the committal proceedings, such articles are again sought for by the concerned court. That is also one of the main grounds which hampers the committal procedure. (iii) In the cases where some of the accused persons are on bail whereas some of them are in the judicial custody, the persons on bail are not remaining present, thereby delaying the committal procedure. (iv) In some of the cases, the accused persons attempt to stall the proceedings either by preferring applications for further investigation, or for quashment of proceedings, as also on other grounds, such applications tend to cause delay. 2.7. Learned A.P.P. has thus urged that the committal proceedings for the reasons above could not be completed. He, however, has urged that the office of the Director General of Police is contemplating issuance of circular to all the Police Commissioners; Superintendence of Police; Range I.G.Ps. to direct the investigating officers to insist upon muddamal to be submitted along with the charge-sheet and in the event of the same not being accepted, the report be sent to the superior officer. It is also being contemplated that within fifteen days from the date of the offence, all articles requiring examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory should be sent and certificate to be obtained from the F.S.L. within sixty days or ninety days; in tune with the time-limit fixed for filing of the charge-sheet. It is also being contemplated that within fifteen days from the date of the offence, all articles requiring examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory should be sent and certificate to be obtained from the F.S.L. within sixty days or ninety days; in tune with the time-limit fixed for filing of the charge-sheet. 2.8 Apart from general grounds explained in the affidavit, as far as the case of the present applicant is concerned, it appears from the rojkam that on 12th March 2013; 26th March 2013 and 9th April 2013, the applicant was not produced before the Court by the jail authorities. Period from August 2012 to March 2013; if it is broadly looked at, barring these three dates on which there was no production of the accused No.1, on about four dates on which both the co-accused on bail chose not to remain present. Of course, from December 2012 to March 2013, sufficient time was available for the Court to undertake committal proceedings. It can be noted that in an application moved on 13th April 2013 for further investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Court permitted such further investigation at the behest of the accused-applicant and to report to the Court within thirty days of its order. Thus, a broad picture that emerges is that for about seven to eight adjournments, on account of non availability of the accused Nos.2 and 3, and accused no.1 respectively, the Court could not proceed further. However, once again, the surety and all the accused were present in the month of December 2012 till March 2013, no valid reasons come-forth for non committal of the proceedings. In post March period, on an application moved for further investigation an order is passed where the learned Magistrate has directed the report of such further investigation on or before 2nd August 2013, therefore, such period [post March] will not come to the rescue of the applicant, according to the learned A.P.P. 2.9 On merit of this case, it is urged that in the complaint itself, gross allegations are made against the present applicant and both of his parents. On account of parents' advanced age and for other reasons, they had been granted anticipatory bail, therefore, no parity can be claimed by the present applicant. On account of parents' advanced age and for other reasons, they had been granted anticipatory bail, therefore, no parity can be claimed by the present applicant. Again, as the period of seven years had not been completed from the date of wedlock of the applicant with the deceased and therefore, presumption contemplated under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act shall also be attracted. He urged the Court not to exercise discretion only on account of noncommittal of the case to the Court of Sessions. He also urged to consider the number of adjournments granted by the committal Court due to absence of other two accused who are parents of the present applicant. 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. 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. 4. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, firstly, it would be necessary to consider the submissions in respect of committal proceedings from the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. 4.1. Chapter XVI Cr.P.C. under the heading "Commencement of proceedings before Magistrates" provides for supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in the cases triable by the Court of Session under section 208 and committal of case to the Court of Session under section 209, when offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. It would be profitable to reproduce both these provisions; including section 207 Cr.P.C. at this stage :" 207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. It would be profitable to reproduce both these provisions; including section 207 Cr.P.C. at this stage :" 207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following: (i) the police report; (ii) the first information report recorded under section 154; (iii) the statements recorded under subsection (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under subsection (6) of Section 173; (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164; (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under subsection (5) of section 173 : Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court. 208. Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session. 208. Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session. Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following: (i) the statements recorded under section 200 or section 202, of all persons examined by the Magistrate; (ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under section 161 or section 164; (iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court. 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it. When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall (a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made. (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial; (c)send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. 4.2. These three provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure thus provide for committal proceedings in cases where proceedings are instituted on police report or otherwise than on police reports and requirement of furnishing all the documents to the accused is set out; except those which are very voluminous prior to in fact Magistrate committing the cases to the Court of Sessions. These three provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure thus provide for committal proceedings in cases where proceedings are instituted on police report or otherwise than on police reports and requirement of furnishing all the documents to the accused is set out; except those which are very voluminous prior to in fact Magistrate committing the cases to the Court of Sessions. Needless to emphasis that the committal is not a mechanical act but a judicial function, to be performed by the Magistrate, as ruled by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman, reported in 1983 (2) SCC 372 . 4.2.1. In other context, in the case of Gangula Ashok & Anr. v. State of A.P., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 504 which requires a reference here where, the Apex Court has held that 193 Cr.P.C. imposes an interdict on all Courts of Session against taking cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction. It can take cognizance only if the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate as provided in the Code. This also further vindicates importance of committal as also expeditious committal of the same by the Magistrate. 4.3. Chapter XVII under the heading "The Charge" provides for framing of the charges, joinder of the same, etc., and the trial before the Court of Session. Sections 225 to 237 of this Chapter provides for a trial before the Court of Session on the basis of material available, the Court takes cognizance of offences and frame the charges and on production of original documents trial begins. It would be necessary to make a reference, at this stage of Section 309 Cr.P.C., which provides that every inquiry or trial shall be held as expeditiously as possible and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. 4.4. Mention needs to be made of Chapter IV of the Criminal Manual which provides for method of inquiry and trial by the Magistrate. This chapter at micro level takes case of fulfilling requirement of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C. Rule 81 thereof speaks for supply of copies of documents to the accused. 4.4. Mention needs to be made of Chapter IV of the Criminal Manual which provides for method of inquiry and trial by the Magistrate. This chapter at micro level takes case of fulfilling requirement of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C. Rule 81 thereof speaks for supply of copies of documents to the accused. It insist upon the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate at the commencement of the committal proceedings, when the accused appears or is brought before him that all the copies of documents referred to in Section 207 and 208; as the case may be, are furnished to the accused. If these copies are not furnished to the accused, he can cause to furnish them immediately and if not possible within such time, not exceeding one week as may be allowed by the Magistrate. This is to enable the accused to study the copies and prepare his defence. The committal proceedings under the said Chapter, as provided for in Rules 82 to 87, read thus " 82. When it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall- (1) Cause the copies of the statements and other documents furnished to the accused as provided in Section 207 or Section 208, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. After the Magistrate is personally satisfied that all the copies of statements and other documents as specified in above referred Sections are supplied, the Magistrate shall commit the accused to the Court of Session under Section 209 of the Code. (2) No preliminary inquiry is required to be held and no charge is to be framed by the Magistrate, while committing the accused to the Court of Session under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. (3) It is not necessary to give the reasons for committing the case to the Court of Session, however, the formal order should be passed by the Magistrate committing the case to the Court of Session under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (4) If the Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Session under Section 323, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate shall record reasons for such commitment. (5) Subject to provisions of bail in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused may be released on bail by the Magistrate committing the case to the Court of Session. (4) If the Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Session under Section 323, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate shall record reasons for such commitment. (5) Subject to provisions of bail in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused may be released on bail by the Magistrate committing the case to the Court of Session. (6) Immediately after the case is committed to the Court of Session, the Court should notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. (7) The record of the case and documents should be properly arranged and should be sent to the Court of Session. (8) All muddamal articles should be serially numbered and set to the Court of Session along with the record of the case or just after the record is sent. If any article is not sent, the reasons for that should be mentioned. 83. In order to avoid harassment to the accused it should be the endeavour of every Magistrate to dispose of committal proceedings as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within a period not exceeding two months from the date of submission of the charge-sheet. Magistrate should report to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be the reasons for not disposing of the committal proceedings within the period of two months. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, should then satisfy himself as to whether the reasons stated are satisfactory and whether the Magistrate should be allowed extension of time. He should then issue such instructions to the Magistrate as he deems proper. 84. (a) When a Magistrate commits the accused to the Court of Session, he should question the accused as to whether he desires to make his own arrangement for his defence in the Sessions Court, or whether arrangement should be made by the Sessions Court to engage a pleader on his behalf. In the latter case, the Magistrate should, when committing the case for trial, intimate the Sessions Court accordingly. (b) If the accused is not to be represented by pleader, the Magistrate should inquire from the authorities or from other sources as to whether the accused has sufficient means to engage pleader. In the latter case, the Magistrate should, when committing the case for trial, intimate the Sessions Court accordingly. (b) If the accused is not to be represented by pleader, the Magistrate should inquire from the authorities or from other sources as to whether the accused has sufficient means to engage pleader. The Magistrate should report the result of his inquiry to the Court of Sessions, as early as possible after the commitment to enable the Court of Session to assign a defence pleader at the expense of State under Section 304, Criminal Procedure Code. 85. When two or more persons are accused of the same offence or of offences arising out of the same transaction, the Magistrate should not convict some and commit others to the Court of Session. If any one of the accused is charged with an offence beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, or with one which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, ought to be tried by the Court of Session, all the accused persons implicated, against whom there is a prima facie evidence, should be committed for trial. 86. A Magistrate should not postpone the committal of an accused person to the Sessions Court merely on the ground that the report of the Chemical Analyzer in regard to articles sent to him for examination has not been received. In such cases, the committing Magistrate shall forward along with the committal order the list of the articles sent to the Chemical Analyzer stating the date on which they were sent. 87. The Judicial Magistrate should submit to the Sessions Judge and the Metropolitan Magistrate should submit through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad before 5th of each month the list, in Form No.44 of the cases likely to be committed to the Court of Session during the month." 4.5. Thus, it emerges from these provisions that the Magistrate is required to ensure supply of copies of the police report, First Information Report, Statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses, confessions and statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and any other document or relevant extract on which the prosecution seeks to rely upon, to be provided to the accused. These documents are needed to be furnished immediately but not later than one week from the date of furnishing of Police report or otherwise when Magistrate decides that the case is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. On having satisfied that the copies of submissions and documents are furnished to the accused, as provided under the law, he is required to commit the case to the Court of Session under Section 209 of the Code. The record of the case and documents should be properly arranged and all that are required to be sent to the Court of Session along with muddamal articles, to be serially numbered along with the record of the case. If any article is left out, the reason is to be given for not having sent the same at the time of committal. 4.6. Rule 83 of the Criminal Manual specifically prescribes that in order to avoid harassment to the accused, it should be the endeavour of every Magistrate to dispose of committal proceedings as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within a period of not exceeding two months from the date of submission of the charge-sheet. In the event of such time period not being adhered to, he is required to report to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate; as the case may be, along with the reasons for not disposing of the committal proceedings. It is also necessary for the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate to satisfy himself as to whether such reasons are satisfactory or not, and whether further extension of period should be granted or not to the Magistrate concerned. Necessary instructions in accordance with such satisfaction are required to be issued. 4.7. It is also incumbent upon the Magistrate concerned to inquire with the accused at the time of committal as to whether he desires to avail any legal aid and in the event of his desire that the session court should engage a lawyer for him, such intimation should be sent to the Session Court. If no pleader is representing the accused at the time of committal, necessary inquiry is contemplated either from the authorities or through other sources and a report of the same is also sent to the Court of Session for assigning defence pleader at the expense of the State under section 304 Cr.P.C. 4.8. If no pleader is representing the accused at the time of committal, necessary inquiry is contemplated either from the authorities or through other sources and a report of the same is also sent to the Court of Session for assigning defence pleader at the expense of the State under section 304 Cr.P.C. 4.8. Rule 86 also takes care of possible delay at the ends of Forensic Science Laboratory. It requires that no postponement is desirable only on account of the report of the Chemical Analyzer in regard to articles sent to him for examination gets delayed. In such event, the committing Magistrate shall forward to the Court of Sessions, along with the committal order, a list of articles sent to the Chemical Analyzer stating the date on which they were sent. Absence of specific reference of any other scientific report other than that of chemical analyzer in the Manual need not be read as absence of requirement under the law, when Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates supply of supply of all those documents on which prosecution proposes to rely. With the advancement of Forensic Sciences and profuse utilisation of scientific tools in the investigation, as also their use as evidence in the criminal trials, all those scientific reports also need to be construed as part of requirement of Rule 86 of Criminal Manual. 4.9. Rule 87 also requires all the Judicial Magistrates to submit to the Sessions Court and the Metropolitan Magistrates to submit through the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the Sessions Court, before 5th day of each month, the list in Form 44 of the cases likely to be committed to the Court of Session during the month. Exhaustive guideline is provided under the Manual in consonance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. The oft repeated emphasis of need of expeditious criminal trial is the motto for laying down these rules for fulfilling such objectives. 4.10. It is to be noted from the affidavit as also from the Chart submitted that the scientific records are not available within prescribed time limit and the committal proceedings get delayed more often than not on account thereof. It is for the prosecuting agency to make necessary arrangements and to ensure that soon after collection of the articles during the course of investigation, the same be transferred to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is for the prosecuting agency to make necessary arrangements and to ensure that soon after collection of the articles during the course of investigation, the same be transferred to the Forensic Science Laboratory. But, such period should not exceed more than two weeks from the date of such collection, unless there are sufficient reasons available with the investigating agency for causing the delay in sending such report. At the cost of reiteration, it needs to be stated at this juncture that Sections 207 and 209 contemplate furnishing of the documents on which prosecution seeks to rely upon to be furnished to the accused by the Magistrate before committal proceedings. If articles with regard to which the report/s of F.S.L. or other experts are being sought, are not sent in time, there would be no possibility of either the return of the muddamal articles or of the report being received at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. Consequently, neither there would be possibility of furnishing such documents to the accused and invariably such document shall have to be sent at a belated date. 4.11. Of course, Rule 86 of the Criminal Manual takes care of such eventualities where committing Magistrate is required to forward along with the committal order a list of articles sent to the expert stating the date on which they were sent. However, no postponement of committal proceedings is contemplated thereof. But, that would not mean that taking recourse to Rule 86, the investigating agency does not send the articles for examination to the F.S.L. in time, when specific time period is contemplated under the Criminal Manual, and as otherwise also, at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, it is expected that all documents the prosecution seeks to rely upon are to be submitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate who has to act not mechanically while carrying out his duty of committal under the statute. Again, the fact hardly can be ignored that none observance of time schedule from this stage itself is a major contributor to the cause of delay in achieving the laudable object of speedy trial, emphasised time and again by the Courts. 4.11.1. Again, the fact hardly can be ignored that none observance of time schedule from this stage itself is a major contributor to the cause of delay in achieving the laudable object of speedy trial, emphasised time and again by the Courts. 4.11.1. It is also to be noted that while submitting the report on completion of the investigation in the form of the charge-sheet, Investigating agency is obliged to follow the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 173 and sub-rule 5 of Section 173. Chapter VII of the Criminal Manual speaks of "Muddamal Property". Rule 216 to 234 provides for arrangement of muddamal, valuable muddamal, returning or disposal of the muddamal, etc. Every time, the muddamal is produced by the Police in a criminal case, it is required to be produced by a Note [Pavti or Yadi] in duplicate showing full description of measurement, weight, etc., of each kind of muddamal produced in the Court. This is required to be verified by senior Clerk of Judicial Magistrate or Sheristedar in the Court of Session or the Nazir of the Session Court; as the case may be and on due verification, enter the same in the muddamal register and return the duplicate to the Police in token of having received the muddamal. The serial number, date, etc., of the muddamal register of the Court in which the said articles have been entered should be written on the original Pavti and Yadi and its duplicate and such duplicate should be returned to the Police in token of having received the muddamal. The Nazir, Senior Clerk or Sheristedar; as the case may be, should affix the seal of the Court on the Pavtis or Yadis. 5. One of the grounds stated in the aforementioned affidavit is that the muddamal is not being accepted along with charge-sheet by the competent Court for want of required space and only at the time of committal proceedings, such muddamal is being called for. Since it is provided under the law as also under the Criminal Manual for the Police to submit the charge-sheet along with the muddamal articles, no refusal of acceptance of such articles on the ground of paucity of space can be putforth as it can be noted that sufficient infrastructural facilities are available for every court to house the same. Since it is provided under the law as also under the Criminal Manual for the Police to submit the charge-sheet along with the muddamal articles, no refusal of acceptance of such articles on the ground of paucity of space can be putforth as it can be noted that sufficient infrastructural facilities are available for every court to house the same. If such denial is on account of lack of management on administrative side, provisions cannot be permitted to be overreached due to that limitation. In the event of any administrative staff/officer denying to receive muddamal articles in contravention of the provision, report can be made to the concerned Presiding Officer, or to its Superior Court; as the case may be. 6. As far as other two grounds contended of those bailed out not remaining present and application of further investigation, quashing petitions, etc., being pending, it would be sufficient to note that each case will have to be considered on the basis of the facts emerging in that case. Every accused, when bailed out is imposed with a condition of not to thwart the criminal proceedings and in the event of any such attempt by any one, the Courts are vested with ample powers and they are expected to exercise those powers so as to ensure that the accused abide by the terms of the grant of order of bail and again, such exercise may also bee needed to comply with the requirement of the provisions of the Criminal Manual as also to subserve the objective of speedy trial in the criminal cases. 6.1. In case of application for further investigation, general grounds pleaded cannot furnish the reason for this Court to opine on such issue. In any case, any legal right conferred by any provision of law can not be curtailed by any general sweep of observations. 6.2. Suffice to note that entire discussion held herein before is to require due compliance of these provisions by one and all concerned. For the initial period of course, for which co-accused were absent, no benefit can be given to the petitioner, however, entire post period of charge-sheet requires consideration. As noted above, due to absence of co-accused on couple of adjourned dates, no committal would be possible. However, in December 2012, surety and accused all were present. For the initial period of course, for which co-accused were absent, no benefit can be given to the petitioner, however, entire post period of charge-sheet requires consideration. As noted above, due to absence of co-accused on couple of adjourned dates, no committal would be possible. However, in December 2012, surety and accused all were present. Till March 2013, rojkam does not indicate any reason for non committal in accordance with law and as such period cannot be attributed to the accused nor to prosecution, nor furnishing of muddamal or report of F.S.L. in the instant case, this successive bail needs to be entertained having provided a ground to the accused. 6.3. With this, the law on merit shall have to be examined for considering allow-ability of this application. It is the case of alleged perpetration of physical and mental harassment on account of dowry demand and the lady having committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage. The complaint speaks volumes of physical beating soon before the victim chose to end her life. Within a span of four and half years, many disputes between spouses are prima facie evident from the record. Serious allegations are also made against the father-in-law in respect of alleged attempt of rape as well. Though such allegations were part of the proceedings pending before the competent Court at Aligadh at the earlier point of time, the papers of charge-sheet possibly do not reflect those details resulting into father-in-law getting anticipatory bail. 6.4. Be that as it may, the case of the applicant-husband is to be examined on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation. It is an admitted position of law that only when the accused provides proximate reason of suicide, leaving no alternative for the victim, offence under Section 306 I.P.C. gets attracted. Various case laws on the subject are pressed into service which do not require any elaboration here. However, the Court cannot be oblivious of the presumption provided under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act when a married lady commits suicide within a span of seven years of her marriage. The marriage span in the instant case is four and half years and that too with serious allegations having been hurled at the hands of the inlaws and the present applicant, his case on merits requires no meritorious consideration. 7. The marriage span in the instant case is four and half years and that too with serious allegations having been hurled at the hands of the inlaws and the present applicant, his case on merits requires no meritorious consideration. 7. Much emphasis is placed on the decision of this Court rendered in case of Rameshchandra C. Soni & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (Supra) which has ruled that for establishing the abatement covered by clause (iii) read with Explanation to Section 107 I.P.C., intentional aiding required to be established and not the mere aiding. This will not help the accused at this stage. It is too pre-matured for this Court to hold, particularly in absence of the same and prima facie in wake of serious allegations made in the complaint coupled with the fact that their marriage span was four and half years, with all the disputes, allegations, counter allegations and criminal litigations. It is for the court concerned to evaluate the entire evidences and conclude finally. Suffice to note prima facie that the applicant has failed to satisfy this Court of validity of his case on merits. 7.1. Apex Court in case of Younus Bin Omer Yafai alias Younusbhai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Supra] has held that in case of serious and grave offences, prima facie involvement of accused when is established, denial of bail is justified. 8. In wake of the above discussion, present Criminal Misc. Application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. 9. Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned A.P.P. Shri R.C. Kodekar for further follow up action. Application dismissed.