Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48770 of 2018 Applicant :- Banti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Banti, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.
322 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhaulana, District- Hapur, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant-Banti was solemnized with Seema on 10.12.2006 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock three children, namely, Sachin, who is said to be now aged about 10 years, Sonia (daughter), who is said to be now aged about 8 years and son Ladoo aged about 4 years were born. After the expiry of a period of more than 11 years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 24.06.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died as she consumed some poisonous substance. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid occurrence was lodged on 25.06.2018 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Rajveer Singh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 322 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhaulana, District- Hapur. In the aforesaid first information report three persons, namely Banti-husband, Sachin-Dewar and Kanchhid Lal-father-in-law of the deceased were nominated as named accused. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.06.2018 on the information given by the first informant. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.06.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that no opinion can be given regarding the cause of death of the deceased. However, the doctor further found that there was no external anti-mortem injury on the body of the deceased. Accordingly, viscera of the deceased was preserved. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 24.07.2018 against all the three named accused. On the submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 24.08.2018 cognizance has been taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 18.09.2018. What has happened subsequent to the cognizance taking order dated 18.09.2018 has not been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present bail application. The Chief Chemical Analyst concerned has submitted the viscera report dated 25.09.2018. According to the said report a foreign chemical compound, namely, Aluminium Phosphide was found in the samples of the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 25.06.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The other two accused, who are similarly circumstanced, have already been enlarged on bail. It is then submitted that the proof of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. However, upto this stage, there is no such evidence on the basis of which it can be assumed that the applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of alleged crime. In short, the submission is that the applicant is being prosecuted for an unabated offence. It is then submitted that from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased three children were born, who are still minors. In view of the aforesaid precarious family circumstances, it is impossible to believe that the applicant shall abet in the commission of present crime involving his own wife/mother of the minor children. On the aforesaid factual premise, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Banti 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 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 her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229- A I.P.C..
(iii) 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.
(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 him 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 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 :- 20.12.2018 Pkb/