Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39340 of 2017 Applicant :- Amar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hafeez Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Amar Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 306, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with Meenu on 6th May, 2009 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. After expiry of a period of 7 years and 10 months from the date of marriage, unfortunately an incident occurred on 9/10th March, 2017, in which the wife of the applicant died by committing suicide. Information of the aforesaid incident was given by the elder brother of the applicant to the Police Station concerned on 10th March, 2017. On the information supplied by the brother of the applicant, the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 10th March, 2017. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 10th March, 2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Apart from the above, no other internal or external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Subsequently, a first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged by the father of the deceased on 12th March, 2017, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0185 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid first information report, six persons, namely, Amar Singh i.e. the husband (the applicant herein), Pushpa i.e. the mother-in-law, Arjun Singh i.e. the father-in-law, Ajit Singh i.e. the Jeth, Sudha i.e. the Jethani and Rohit i.e. the Devar of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. Upon partial completion of the statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. of the aforesaid case crime number, the Police has submitted the charge-sheet dated 19th May, 2017 against the husband of the deceased only i.e. the applicant herein. However, it was stated that the investigation is still continuing. What has happened thereafter has not been stated in any affidavits either filed on behalf of the applicant himself or the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the case in hand, the first information report was lodged under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, but the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 498-A, 306, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. He further submits that though the charge-sheet has been submitted also under Section 120-B I.P.C. but no other person has been charge-sheeted except the present applicant in the above mentioned case crime number. Therefore, the submission of the charge-sheet under Section 120B I.P.C. against the applicant alone is doubted by the learned counsel for the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above. It is next contended that the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subjected to prove by way of trial evidence. There is no evidence on record upto this stage on the basis of which it can be said that the the applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. The applicant is innocent having no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 23rd March, 2017. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is vehementally urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. He submits that the applicant has been charge-sheeted by the Police and therefore, the present bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. However, the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Amar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Sushil/-