Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8554 of 2019 Applicant :- Anokhe Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Shri Gyanchandra Yadav, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of first informant, same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., Shri Gyanchandra Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated for dowry death with general allegations being father-in-law of deceased; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that as per averments made in FIR lodged by Hariom, his sister Amreta was married to Kuldeep about three years back and was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry by applicant and other persons; that despite lapse of around three years of marriage deceased was not blessed with child due to which she was living under depression and appears to have consumed some poisonous substance; that in postmortem report no external injury or marks of strangulation were found on the body of deceased and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved; that in any case following dispute between husband and wife, husband would have administered poison to deceased; that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with husband of the deceased; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 10.9.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that dowry death of deceased has been caused by administering poison to deceased within 3 years of marriage.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Anokhe Lal be released on bail in Case Crime No. 898 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328, 323, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kankerkhera, District Meerut, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 T. Sinha