Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15489 of 2019 Applicant :- Brijbhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra,Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 18.5.2018 on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 26.4.2018 against seven accused persons, namely, Brijbhan Singh (Husband), Veerpal Singh, Piki, Savita, Nabav Singh, Dharmendra and Balveer alleging that Sheetla Devi daughter of the complainant was married with Brijbhan on 10.7.2016. For demand of dowry, they killed her by pouring diesel and dead body was disappeared.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that on the basis of investigation, the Investigating Officer has denied the place of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. and also on the basis of statement of first informant it also appears that place of occurrence is village of the applicant i.e. Village- Purahar, Police Station- Aliganj, District- Etah not in the District of first informant i.e. Farrukhabad. It has also been submitted that death of the deceased occurred due to an accidental burn injury. He also submits that the deceased was admitted at Hospital by the applicant and at the last rituals of the deceased the informant was present but with some ulterior motives, false and frivolous F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant against the application to harass the applicant and it is also surprising that no post mortem report or inquest report were prepared. F.I.R. is also delayed one and no plausible reason was given regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that there are no chances of applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and is in jail since 5.1.2019.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant but contended that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Brijbhan involved in Case Crime No. 150 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Anuj Singh