Heard Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for the Applicant, the learned AGA for the State and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Complainant.
Hadisun was married to Ayub alis Bhure (the Applicant) about 10 years back. As no child was born to the couple, the Applicant married Gudiya. On 30.07.2020, three months after the said marriage, Hadisun committed suicide.
Learned counsel for Applicant has contended that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel contends that as per the post-mortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and except for the ligature mark, no other injury was found on the person of the deceased; that the independent witnesses in their respective statements have stated that the deceased committed suicide because of the second marriage of the Applicant; that there is no prior complaint or police case regarding any violence between the husband and wife; that there is no credible evidence against the Applicant of instigating or provoking the deceased to commit suicide. It is contended that the Applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 31.07.2020. It is further contended that there is no possibility of the Applicant fleeing from judicial custody or influencing the witnesses.
Learned AGA and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh have opposed the prayer for bail but they could not dispute the facts as argued by the counsel for the Applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant, Ayub @ Bhure, involved in Case Crime No. 206 of 2020, under Sections 147, 306, 498-A IPC, Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich be released on bail on his 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 would not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. 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.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Anurag