Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18971 of 2014 Applicant :- Gajendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- A.T. Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri A.T. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Jayashree Tiwari, J. vide order dated 28.3.2012. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage between the two was solemnized on 20.12.2010. The present FIR has been lodged on the basis of application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The deceased committed suicide due to house-hold dispute. As per post-mortem report the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and except ligature mark no ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 6.4.2011.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Gajendra involved in Case Crime No.64 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mandrak, district Aligarh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac with two sureties (one should be of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Gaurav