Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45429 of 2018 Applicant :- Anjani Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amaresh Yadava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Amaresh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Anjani Pandey, seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 299 of 2017 (State Vs. Anjani Kumar Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Rinki on 11.6.2014. From the aforesaid wedlock, a child was born on 28.8.2016. However, an unfortunate incident occurred on 21.9.2016, in which the wife of the applicant died. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 22.9.2016 not on the information of the present applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by Janardan Pathak the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of the deceased.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 22.9.2016 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0343 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Anjani Pandey (husband), Santosh Pandey, Ashu Pandey (Devars), Shashikanti Pandey (mother-in-law) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.9.2016. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was cardiological shock due to ante- mortem anaemia. 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 19.4.2017 against all the named accused. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance has been taken upon the same by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 3.5.2017. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, S.T. No. 299 of 2017 (State Vs. Anjani Kumar Pandey) came to be registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 5.2.2017. As such, the applicant has undergone more than 23 months of incarceration. It is then submitted that from the perusal of the post-mortem report, it is explicitly clear that the deceased has died on account of cardiological shock due to ante-mortem anaemia. As such, the death of the deceased is not attributable to any delebrate act of assault on the part of the applicant. The absence of any external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased, speaks of the bonafide of the present applicant. It is next urged that from the wedlock of the deceased and applicant, a male child was born, a short time before the death of the deceased. In the aforesaid precarious circumstances, it is impossible to suggest that the applicant shall even abet in the commission of alleged crime. Lastly, it is submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant only under section 498 A and 304 B IPC but not under section 3/4 D.P. Act. As such, it is thus urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he 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 Anjani Pandey, 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 :- 18.12.2018 Arshad