Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32702 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Tewari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar,Rajnikant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ajeet Kumar Shukla, Advocate on behalf of applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.64 of 2018, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Shahabganj, District- Chandauli, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is father-in-law. In the FIR, as many as six persons were implicated in the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant living separately. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-1 which is Ration Card which clearly shows that applicant living separately. Except this general allegation that husband was having illicit relationship with her bhabhi and levelled by that she committed suicide. Marriage was solemnized in the year 2009. Incident was took place in the year 2018. The applicant is in jail since 11.07.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his 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 applicant.
Keeping in view the age and relationship of the applicant with the deceased 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-Chandra Bhan Tewari, be released on bail in Case Crime No.64 of 2018, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station-Shahabganj, District-Chandauli 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 HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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 IPC.
(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 her 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 :- 28.8.2018 S. Thakur