Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46732 of 2017 Applicant :- Ayub Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Counter affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of the State is taken on record.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Ayub in Case Crime No.294 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304B, 307 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Thathiya, District Kannauj.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saqib Meezan alongwith Sri Kulveer Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is the father-in-law; that there are general allegations against him in the FIR including all family members of the demand of dowry and doing the victim to death; that the applicant is living separately from the deceased and his son the husband of the deceased and is an old man of 68 years; that the deceased has become the victim of an accident by fire as the kerosene stove exploded where none of her in-laws are responsible for an act of setting her afire; that the applicant looking to his age, in particular, cannot be credited with any crime of violence; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 14.08.2017.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant is a 68 year old man.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, the relationship of the applicant to the deceased, and, in particular, the age of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
It is provided that the concession of bail granted to the applicant will not entitle the other co-accused, any of them to bail on the ground of parity.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Ayub involved in the aforesaid be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be concluded positively within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Shahroz