Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27965 of 2018 Applicant :- Aadrash Awasthi Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Srivastava,Jitendra Kumar Yadav,Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Prakhar Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Aadrash Awasthi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 547 of 2017, under Sections - 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Bilsanda, District - Pilibhit, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of dowry death, punishable with imprisonment upto life;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 17.08.2017, the applicant is in confinement since 26.08.2017;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has already been submitted, trial is pending and at present, all witness of fact have been examined;
(vi) on prima facie basis, learned counsel for the applicant have relied on the post mortem report to suggest that the cause of death is suicidal hanging and not homicidal. Relying on certain statements recorded during trial, it has been submitted that the case of demand of dowry and presence of the applicant at the time of occurrence has been disproved by the prosecution witness themselves. Even as to the telephonic conversation claimed between the victim and her mother, the same has been denied by the informant.
4. Opposing the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA would submit that no witness have turned hostile and infact, there are unexplained anti mortem injuries observed during post mortem. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail, at this stage.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case as may prejudice the proceedings of trial, at present, it is noted that all witness of fact have been examined by the learned court below and only formal witness remain to be examined. Therefore, there is no chance of tampering of evidence. Also, in absence of any criminal history, the applicant has already remained confined for more than two years. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, brought before this Court, it appears, the present applicant is entitled for bail. Accordingly, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
6. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
7. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
8. Also, the learned court below shall make all efforts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, without allowing for any undue or long adjournment to either party.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Abhilash