1. This application is preferred by the applicant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No.86 of 2002 dated 23.2.2012 by which the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo for a period of two years R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to further undergo two months S.I. The applicant was further ordered to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. Chhayat for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial Judge. He drew the attention of this Court to the letters produced at Exhibit 49 to 51. The said letters were written by the deceased and it is further submitted by the learned senior advocate that the date of letters and date of incident is required to be considered. He further submitted that initially the charge under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the applicant, but later on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was added. He read the date of letter at Exhibit 49 as 13.6.1985, Exhibit 50 dated 19.9.1984 and Exhibit 51 dated 13.10.1984. He also submitted the after 14 months, the letters were produced. He further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 106 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code, are not attracted to the present case. Even the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of provocation, abetment and instigation are not proved. He also submitted that as per Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is required to be released on bail as he is imposed very short sentence. He, therefore, prays to release the applicant on bail during the hearing of this Revision.
3. Learned APP Mr. Raval for the State strongly opposed the bail application. They also submitted that discretion may not exercised in favour of the applicant. He also submitted that there was marriage span of only about 2 years and 6 months only, therefore, presumption can be drawn against the applicant. He further submitted that looking to the illicit relation which is cited by the deceased, show that main ingredients of provocation to commit the suicide can be said to be established.
4. Perused the record and considered the submission made by the parties. I have also taken into consideration the letters written by the deceased produced at Exhibit 49 to 51. Considering the fact that the appeal is arising from the short sentence imposed by the learned Judge and considering the pendency of large number of matters and considering the provisions under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that during the hearing of this Appeal, the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on usual terms and conditions. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top