Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41461 of 2018 Applicant :- Bablu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants in Court today is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicants, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Banpur, District Lalitpur during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of the applicant no.1 (Bablu) namely Pradeep was solemnized with Rashmi on 29.4.2017. After the expiry of a period of one year and one month from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant No.1, an unfortunate incident occurred on 6.6.2018, in which the wife of the brother of the applicant namely Rashmi sustained burn injuries. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 7.6.2018 on the information given by the applicant No.1 (Bablu). In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be homicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 7.6.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was cardio respiratory failure on account of ante- mortem flame burn injury. The Doctor further found that the deceased had sustained ante-mortem third degree burn injuries over her body except the sole. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 7.6.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 91 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Banpur, District Lalitpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Pradeep (husband), Prembai, Bablu and Sukhwati were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a charge-sheet dated 30.8.2018 against all the named accused. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken vide cognizance taking order dated 5.9.2018. What has happened subsequent thereto has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, nor the same has been disclosed at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are Jeth and Jethani of the deceased but they are innocent. The applicants are in jail since 9.6.2018. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. Applicants are residing separately from the house of the deceased. To buttress his submission, reliance is placed upon the Rashan Card, which is at page 45 of the paper book. Referring the supplementary affidavit filed today in Court, learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the certificate issued on 5.11.2018 by Gram Pradhan, wherein it has been categorically stated that applicants are residing separately from the family of the deceased. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the present applicants have no concern with the family affairs of the deceased. Referring to the case diary, learned counsel for the applicants submits that even during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has also found that the applicants are living separately from the family of the deceased. As such, the present applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicants are charge sheeted accused under section 304 IPC. As such, presumption is available to the prosecution. The deceased was a young girl aged about 20 years who had died just after the expiry of eight months from the date of her marriage. He, therefore, submits that the bail application of the applicants is liable to be rejected. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
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 applicants but without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicants have made out a case for bail.
Let the applicants Bablu and Smt. Sukhwati, 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS MISUSE 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 APPLICANTS FAIL 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, 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 :- 30.11.2018 Arshad