Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Budhiya And Another vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 July, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26823 of 2018 Applicant :- Budhiya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in case crime no.134 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Nichlaul, District-Maharajganj are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the FIR was lodged by the complainant against three accused persons including the applicants. The allegation is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the members of her matrimonial house in connection with the demand of dowry and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was tortured till her death. The next contention is that the incident is said to have been taken place on 10.04.2018 and the FIR was lodged by Shiv Nath Sahni on 13.04.2018 after a delay of three days. Though, during the inquest that was conducted on 11.04.2018, Shrawan Nishad s/o Shiv Nath Sahni remained present but there was no plausible justification as to how and in what circumstances, the FIR was registered on 13.04.2018. The applicants are the parent-in-laws and are living separately. They cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the said dowry demand. Both are senior citizens and suffering from number of diseases. The applicants are in jail since 15.04.2018, having no criminal antecedents to their credit.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Keeping in view the relationship of the applicants with the deceased and considering the fact that the applicants are living separately, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.
Let the applicants-Smt. Budhiya and Sahdev, involved in case crime no.134 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Nichlaul, District-Maharajganj 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 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 IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSES 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 IPC.
(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.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Sumit S
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Budhiya And Another vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 July, 2018
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Vineet Kumar Singh