Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32478 of 2018 Applicant :- Bhagwanti Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bijai Nath Yadav,Prem Prakash Yadav,Satya Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicants-Bhagwanti Devi and Parmeshwar @ Buttu seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S.-Kone, District-Sonbhadra, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant no.1, Bhagwanti Devi was solemnized with Parmeshwar Yadav on 07.06.2011 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, after the expiry of a period of five years and eight months from the date of marriage, the husband of the applicant no.1, Namely, Parmeshwar Yadav committed suicide. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 01.06.2018. According to the allegations made in the F.I.R. the deceased was forced to commit suicide on account of love affair of the applicant no.1 with the applicant no.2 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been charge-sheeted under Section 306 I.P.C. However, the proof of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. There is no such evidence on the record on the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant no.1 has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. In short the submission is that the applicants are being prosecuted for unabeted offence. The deceased is the husband of the applicant no.1 and it is impossible to accept the F.I.R.'s allegations. It is thus submitted that the applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 with whom the applicant no.1 is alleged to have love affair, are liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submissions made 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 applicants-Bhagwanti Devi and Parmeshwar @ Buttu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing their personal bond each 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 they 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under section 229-A I.P.C..
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 them 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 their bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel their bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 YK