Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11530 of 2018 Applicant :- Dashrath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Dashrath Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 504 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah.
Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the father-in-law; that there are general allegations with no specific role being assigned to the applicant; that the applicant lives separately of the deceased not a few paces away but at New Delhi whereas the deceased with her husband, the applicant's son lives at the parties native village at District Etawah as said in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit; that this is a case of accident by fire while the deceased was warming milk for the child and on that happening the husband rushed to rescue her as said in paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit; that the deceased has taken to the hospital and to the higher centres for treatment; that the husband in the rescue efforts also sustained burn injuries mention to which is made in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit supported by the documents annexed as annexure no. 7 to the affidavit; that there has been no demand of dowry or harassment in connection with the same, a fact asserted on the strength of paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit; that the applicant is an old man of 60 years with infirm health as said in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 28.01.2018.
Learned counsel for the complainant Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that the mention of an accident where an indigenous kerosene lamp (dhibri) is said to be the active agent is something unimaginable in contemporary times; that it is a case where a wife has met an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in the four walls of her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand added to which is the humanitarian feature that she was in the family way . As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail adopting the submissions of Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. However, the learned AGA does not dispute that the applicant lived at Delhi whereas the incident had happened at Etawah.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, the relationship of the applicant to the deceased who is the father-in-law living away at Delhi where as the incident happened at Etawah but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
It is made clear that anything said in this order will not influence the trial court in arriving at its conclusions based on the evidence led at the trial.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Dashrath Singh involved in Case Crime No. 504 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Deepak