Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45579 of 2018 Applicant :- Indrapal Singh Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Yadav,Jawahir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Bal Krishna Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Indrapal Singh Gautam seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 716 of 2016 (State Vs. Indrapal Singh Gautam and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 904 of 2018, under Sections 498- A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khurja, District-Bulandshahr during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Sanghpriya Gautam was solemnized with Raja Bala alias Rinki on 17.02.2011. From the aforesaid wedlock a daughter namely Nandini and a son namely Vansh were born. Both the children are said to be minors as they are aged about 5 years and 2 years respectively. After the expiry of a period of seven years and five months from the date of the marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 27.07.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 27.07.2018 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the Gram Pradhan namely Raju. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 28.07.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 28.07.2018 by Harjas, the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 904 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Khurja, District-Bulandshahr.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely, Sangpriya Gautam (the husband) and Indrapal Gautam (the father-in-law) of deceased were nominated as named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 14.09.2018 implicating both the named accused. The charge sheet had been submitted under sections 304 B, 498A IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon the same by the court concerned and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 716 of 2018 (State Vs. Indrapal Gautam and others) came to be registered which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Bulandshahr. On date, two prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 namely Harjas, the first informant, father of the deceased and P.W. 2 Rakesh, brother of the deceased have been examined. However, they could not support the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant is an old man aged about 60 years. The applicant is in Jail since 30.07.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is then submitted that the applicant is residing separately from the family of the deceased and in support thereof, the photo copy of the Gas Connection paper pertaining to the applicant has been brought on the record as Annexure No. 5 to the Bail Application. It is then submitted that from the wedlock of the son of the applicant and the deceased two children namely Nandini and Vansh were born, who are still minors as they are aged about 5 years and 2 years respectively. In the aforesaid precarious circumstances, it is impossible to believe that the present applicant, who is the grand father of the minors will abet in the commission of the alleged crime involving his daughter-in-law. It is then submitted that there is clear contradiction in the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet, inasmuch as the date of marriage is seriously disputed by the present applicant. On account of the aforesaid, the F.I.R. was initially registered under section 306 I.P.C. but charge sheet has been submitted under section 304 B I.P.C. also. Upto this stage, there is no such evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized within a period of 7 years from the date of occurrence. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus submitted that the present applicant being the father-in-law of the deceased. is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, could not dispute the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant-Indrapal Singh Gautam, 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 :- 19.12.2018 HSM