Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49312 of 2018 Applicant :- Ashish Tomar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Singh,Ajay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Ashish Tomar seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 155 of 2014 undre Section 306 IPC (State Vs. Meena Kumari and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 187 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 326, 352 IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Usrahar, District Etawah, during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant was a named accused in the FIR dated 15.10.2013, however, the applicant was not charge- sheeted. The applicant has been summoned in the aforementioned sessions trial on the basis of application moved by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Two of the named accused namely, Smt. Meena Kumari (mother-in-law) and Avinash @ Raju husband of the deceased have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.7.2014 and 30.7.2014 respectively. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that the present applicant, who is not a charge-sheeted-accused but has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, learned AGA would not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but 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-Ashish Tomar 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229- A I.P.C..
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 him 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 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