Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45824 of 2018 Applicant :- Dushyant Kumar @ Moti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pratap Kanchan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Pratap Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Dushyant Kumar @ Moti, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant namely Dushyant was solemnized with Sarla Devi on 4.5.2009 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of nine years from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 18.7.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.8.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the father of the deceased. It is the case of the present applicant that the dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police after breaking the door of the room which was bolted from inside, where the deceased had committed suicide. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. Post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 18.7.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of anti mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 18.7.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0237 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons namely, Dushyant (husband), Dariyab Singh (father-in- law), Mahesh Kumari (mother-in-law) were nominated as the accused persons. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the investigation of the aforesaid case crime number is still pending.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 17.9.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. As per the post mortem report, no external injury has been found on the body of the deceased. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that there is no evidence up to this stage to show that the present applicant has abetted in the commission of crime. It is also urged that the charge under section 306 IPC can be proved only by trial evidence. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Dushyant Kumar @ Moti, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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 his/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 :- 30.11.2018 Arshad