Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41440 of 2014 Applicant :- Deep Chandra Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- R.L. Verma,C.B. Verma,Rajesh Singh,Suved Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sinha on 20.1.2014.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 123 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Bahriya, District- Allahabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant who is the husband of the deceased Neeta is absolutely innocent, and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that even the statement of P.W. 1 has also not been recorded till date although the applicant is in jail for the last 6 years and has already undergone almost the entire minimum prescribed sentence on conviction u/s 304-B IPC and hence, the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents to his credit, and is in jail since 29.10.2012 is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A. but does not dispute the fact that the applicant is in jail for about 6 years (5 years 11 months).
Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Let the applicant, Deep Chandra Saroj be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 123 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Bahriya, District- Allahabad, subject to 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, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such 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 learned counsel for the informant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. 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 :- 13.9.2018 Shalini