Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17788 of 2017 Applicant :- Jai Singh Vikal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Nath Rai,Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kapil Tyagi
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Jai Singh Vikal in Case Crime No.375 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Badalpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased committed suicide as she was a psychiatric patient that led her to take the extreme step. In this connection the learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the medical prescription relating to the deceased Nisha from Dr. Gorav Gupta, M.B.B.S., M.D. (Phsychiatry) of Tulsi Psychiatric & Rehabilitation, New Delhi and prescriptions dated 02.07.2016 and 27.08.2016 from a certain "The Healers Psychiatry Centre, Speciality Neuro Psychiatry & De-addiction Clinic, New Delhi". It is further submitted by Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the father-in-law living separately from the deceased and her husband. It is also submitted that the incident is said to have taken place on 18.11.2016 at 12 midnight but the FIR was lodged with delay on 18.11.2016 at 05:50 p.m. though the distance of police station is only 05 k.ms.; there is no explanation of the delay. It is further submitted that the prosecution case has been improved by the Investigating Officer while recording the supplementary statement of the first informant. It is also submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased is the out come of tutoring by her family to implicate the entire family of her husband on account of misplaced grudge which does not qualify the threshold test of a dependable dying declaration. It is in the last submitted that co- accused Mamta and Kishanwanti @ Kanti who are also named in the dying declaration have been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49005 of 2017 and order dated 02.02.2018, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2274 of 2018 respectively which in the submission of learned counsel, in particular, entitles the applicant to bail on the ground of parity.
Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA have opposed the bail plea with the submission that applicant is nominated in the dying declaration as one of the four accused distinguished from other family members, including the husband who has not been nominated in the dying declaration. As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail. However, learned counsel for the complaint or the learned AGA do not dispute the factum of parity with the case of co-accused Mamta and Kishanwanti @ Kanti who have been specifically nominated in the dying declaration and have been admitted to bail by this Court.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the relationship of the deceased to the applicant and, in particular, the parity with co-accused Mamta and Kishanwanti @ Kanti who have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.12.2017 and 02.02.2018 last mentioned but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Jai Singh Vikal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him 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, it is open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Shahroz