Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49317 of 2018 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Amit Kumar for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.
322 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of the applicant, namely, Sanjay was solemnized with Reena on 27th December, 2012 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. After expiry of a period of six years and four months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 14th May, 2018, in which, the daughter-in-law of the applicant consumed some poisonous substance. It is the case of the applicant that immediately after the occurrence had taken place, the victim was taken to K.M.M. Memorial Hospital, Dhampur Chaurha, Noorpur, Bijnor where she underwent treatment from 14th May, 2018 to 15th May, 2018. The Doctor, who had examined the victim, opined that the victim has consumed some poisonous substance. This statement of fact is established from the medical prescription pertaining to the victim, photo copy of which is on record at page 28 of the paper book. Ultimately the victim succumbed to the poisonous substance consumed by her and she died on 15th May, 2018. However, the body of the deceased was cremated without any intimation to the Police Station concerned. As such, neither the inquest of the body of the deceased was performed nor any post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. After expiry of a period of two months and eight days from the date of occurrence, a first information report dated 23rd July, 2018 was lodged by Shukla @ Sukhlal the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0322 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor. In the aforesaid first information report, five persons, namely, Sanjay-the husband, Amit Kumar-Devar, Sushil-Jeth, Sarvesh- the son of Sushil (Jeth) and Gajram Singh-the father-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police, upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., has submitted a charge-sheet 29th October, 2018 against Sanjay-the husband, Amit Kumar-Devar and Gajram Singh-the father-in- law of the deceased only. The Jeth Sushil and his son Sarvesh named in the above mentioned first information report were excluded. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 29th October, 2018, has not been detailed in the present bail applicant nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is the brother of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 2nd August, 2018. It is next contended that the applicant is residing separately from his brother and in support thereof reliance is placed upon the Ration Card of the applicant, photo copy of which is on record at page 37 of the paper book. It is further contended that the deceased was a short tampered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the first information report. The husband of the deceased is languishing in jail. It is, thus, urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present 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. However, the 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 Amit Kumar 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.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Ravi Kant