Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27922 of 2018 Applicant :- Ishyaq Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the State. Taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Pradeep Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Abhishek Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ishyaq with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 533 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station - Mangalpur, District - Kanpur Dehat, during pendency of trial.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of murder, punishable with imprisonment of life or death penalty;
(ii) against FIR lodged on 04.10.2016, the applicant first surrendered on 15.01.2018. In that regard, it has been explained that the FIR was lodged with the delay of four months and the applicant was not aware of the pending investigation. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant was working at Mumbai and, thus, he was not aware of the investigation;
(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;
(iv) chargesheet has already been submitted, yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the deceased had performed marriage without the consent of the parents of the deceased and that they had been living in matrimony for three years without any disputes. In that background, owing to accidental occurrence, the victim received burn injuries to which she succumbed. In any case, her parents and other family members were present at the time of cremation of her dead body, but the FIR came to be lodged through proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., undertaken about four months after the occurrence. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated, solely on account of bad relationship and mistrust between the parties. The applicant is shown to have remained confined for almost two years;
(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.
5. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
6. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
7. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
8. It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 AHA