Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39499 of 2018 Applicant :- Anantram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Anantram, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0293 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Anantram was solemnized with Mohini on 11.5.2010 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of eight years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 21.6.20183, in which the daughter of the applicant died by committing suicide. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 21.6.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family member but on the information given by the uncle of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of the death of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 21.6.2018 by the uncle of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0293 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Amit Kumar (husband), Arun Kumar (brother-in-law), Anantram (father-in- law), Sandhya (Nand) were nominated as the accused persons. Post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 21.6.2018. 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. The Doctor further noted that there were four injuries on the body of the deceased. One was ligature Mark, second was Nail Mark Abrasion and two contusions on the body of the deceased. Upon competition of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 11.9.2018 against two of the named accused persons whereas, Arun Kumar (brother-in-law) and Sandhya (Nand) have been excluded.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old man. He is not having any criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 22.6.2018. The applicant is living separately from the husband of the deceased. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. The applicant has no role of even abetting in the commission of crime. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
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 Anantram, 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 :- 31.10.2018 Arshad