Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the applicant along with present bail application for exempting the filing of certified copy of the F.I.R. as it could not be made available to the applicant.
The exemption application is allowed.
The filing of certified copy of the F.I.R. is hereby exempted.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Balveer @ Upendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 223 of 2020, under Section(s) 498A, 304 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Sakit, District Etah.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that as per prosecution case it is alleged that marriage of the deceased with the applicant was solemnized in the year 2012 and from the wedlock two children were born but there was an additional demand of a motorcycle by the accused persons who are five in number including the applicant. As per the F.I.R. on 14.11.2020 the deceased was taken to roof of the house from where she was pushed due to which she fell down and received injuries. An information was received by the first informant who is brother of the deceased about the deceased receiving injuries after which he reached her matrimonial house and found her sister's both leg fractured. She was taken to hospital from where she was referred to a higher centre but on 18.11.2020 she died. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that there had been some case between husband and wife which was filed by the deceased in the district court.
Learned counsel argued that the incident in question is said to have taken place on 14.11.2020 but the F.I.R. has been registered on 12.12.2020 which is after delay of about 28 days for which there is no plausible explanation. Further it is argued that although there was a case filed by the deceased against the applicant but there was some intervention of certain people of society due to which the deceased came back to her matrimonial house and was living with the applicant and his family members. It is argued while placing the statements of Sudhakar Baghel, Asharfi Lal, Smt. Veerwati Devi and Smt. Urmila Devi, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 6 to the affidavit, that the deceased was talking on her mobile phone with someone after which there was some scuffle between the applicant and the deceased wherein she slipped and fell down in a vacant plot. It is argued that it is a case of accident and fall of the deceased from the roof was also by accident but was not intentional. It is argued that implication of the applicant is false in the present case and is an afterthought. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.12.2020.
Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is argued that the applicant is husband of the deceased and he is named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation against him of pushing his wife from the roof after which she fell down, received injuries and subsequently died. It is argued that as such the applicant is involved in the present case and even there was litigation between the deceased and the applicant, reference of which is also mentioned in the F.I.R. It is prayed that hence, the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the deceased is wife of the applicant. Marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2012. The couple had two children from the wedlock. There was some litigation between couple but the deceased was living with the applicant and his family members. Four witnesses whose statements have been placed before the Court, are the witnesses of charge sheet who have stated that the deceased slipped from roof and fell down in a scuffle. The F.I.R. is delayed by 28 days.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Balveer @ Upendra, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)