Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44243 of 2018 Applicant :- Anand Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Anand Pal, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B/34, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kanth, District Moradabad during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the younger brother of the applicant namely Rahul Kumar Yadav was solemnized with Kiran on 29.4.2018. After the expiry of a period of two months from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 10.7.2018, in which the Bhayau (wife of the younger brother) died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 10.7.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by Gajendra Pratap father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding cause of death of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 10.7.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0170 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B/34, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kanth, District Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Rahul Kumar Yadav (husband), Mahaveer Singh (father-in-law), Vimla Devi (mother-in-law), Anand pal Singh (Jeth), Reena (Jethani) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. Reena (Jethani of the deceased) has already been enlarged on bail by the Court below vide order dated 5.9.2018. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 10.7.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging. Apart from the above, no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a charge-sheet dated 13.8.2018 against all the named accused. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken vide cognizance taking order dated 31.8.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case has not yet been committed to the court of sessions.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased. Even though the applicant is charge sheeted accused but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 27.8.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that co- accused Reena (Jethani of the deceased) and wife of the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by the court below vide order dated 5.9.2018. The case of the present applicant is identical and similar to that of the co-accused Reena. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that simply vague and omnibus allegations have been made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry. The applicant is residing separately along with his family. As such, the applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of the dowry alleged to have been demanded by the father-in-law and others. As such, the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant is a charge sheeted accused and the death of the deceased has occurred within seven years of marriage in the house of the applicant. As such, the burden is upon the applicant to explain the circumstances in which the alleged incident has occurred. However, the said burden has not been discharged by the applicant up to this stage. He, therefore, submits that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
In rejoinder learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. Except for the ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased. There is no evidence on the record up to this stage to show that the applicant has abetted in the commission of crime. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Anand Pal, 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 :- 26.11.2018 Arshad