Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39064 of 2018 Applicant :- Babu Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Siya Ram Verma,Akansha Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Siya Ram Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Babu Ram, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 603 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Arvind @ Gore Lal was solemnized with Priyanka on 21.5.2013. From the aforesaid wedlock, two daughters namely, Gunjan and Sundari are said to be born. Both are minors aged about two years and four years respectively. After the expiry of a period of five years and one month and 23 days from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 14.7.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant sustained burn injuries. It is the case of the applicant that upon the happening of the occurrence the applicant got the victim admitted to the hospital on 14.7.2018 through the husband of the deceased. However, ultimately, the victim succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her on 14.7.2018. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 14.7.2018 itself on the information given by Manish Kumar constable. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 14.7.2018 by Jagdish the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No.603 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., twelve persons namely, Arvind @ Gorelal (husband), Babu Ram (father-in-law), Vimla Devi (mother-in-law), Ruby (Jethani) Mithun (Devar) Pappu (Jeth), Soni (Devrani), wife of Pappu, Vinod (Nandoi) Mithlesh (married nand), Pramod (Nandoi), Shivdevi (married nand) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 15.7.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was shock due to ante mortem burn injuries. The Doctor described the ante mortem external injury found on the body of the deceased as follows:-
"Superficial to deep burn all over body except front & lateral part of (lt) leg. Both feet both sole & lower part of back & both buttocks Line of redness present in all over burn area Skull hair, eyebrow, eyelashes axillary hair, pubic hair burn & seighed"
The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a charge-sheet dated 24.9.2018 against three of the named accused i.e. husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law of the deceased i.e. the applicant herein. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet dated 24.9.2018 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, by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is an old man aged about 65 years, which fact has categorically been averred in paragraph 10 of the affidavit. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the averments made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant then submits that the applicant was residing separately from the family of the deceased. To buttress his submission, he has invited the attention of the Court to the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the witnesses whose testimony has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein, it has been categorically stated that children of the present applicant are residing separately. On this premise, he submits that since the applicant was residing separately from the family of the deceased, the applicant has no role to play in the family life of the deceased. The deceased was a short tempered lady and appears to have taken the extreme step of committing suicide by self immolation. Up to this stage, there is no evidence to show that the applicant has even abeted in the commission of the alleged crime. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the F.I.R. regarding the demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased for non fulfilment of dowry. However, the present applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the said demand of dowry. As such, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
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 applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Babu Ram, 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/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 APPLICANT 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 APPLICANT MISUSES 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 APPLICANT FAILS 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 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 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 APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, 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 :- 21.12.2018 Arshad