Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7114 of 2018 Applicant :- Kapil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Kapil in connection with Case Crime No. 1049 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 306 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat.
Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birender Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the deceased Aneeta committed unabetted suicide and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; that the FIR giving rise to the present crime lodged by the deceased's father on 03.10.2017 was registered as one for an offence, inter alia, under Section 302 IPC; that after the police went through a searching investigation recording statements of different witnesses acquainted with facts of the case, the case was converted to one under Section 306 IPC; that learned counsel submits that there is no evidence whatsoever of any abetment by the applicant in the matter of the deceased committing suicide; that the applicant is in fact a cousin of the deceased's late husband Balister and, therefore, his presence in the house by itself cannot be frowned upon; that the abetment cited to the credit of the applicant is to the effect that the applicant allegedly became more than a good friend to the deceased Anita and would often visit her place; that it is said that the deceased was seen amongst others by her son Priyanshu in a compromising position with the applicant that led her son to ask the applicant to stop visiting his house but the applicant persisted which embarrassed the deceased badly; that on the fateful day she doused herself in kerosene and set herself afire; that in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant even if the applicant's intimate relations to the deceased and their exposure caused her some embarrassment the same by itself could not constitute instigation, aid or conspiracy within the meaning of Section 107 IPC so as to bring the case within the teeth of Section 306 IPC; and, that the applicant is a respectable man with no criminal history who is in jail since 25.10.2017.
Sri Birender Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that the act of the applicant in establishing carnal relations with the deceased that became public is abetment in itself and if that was not abetment, the act of the applicant on 29.09.2017 in the night hours in visiting the deceased's place in the presence of her son despite refusal by the deceased followed by unsavoury conversation with her is certainly abetment attracting the provisions of Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of deceased's son Priyanshu recorded on 13.10.2017 by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that is part of the annexure no. 5 to the affidavit in support of the bail application to substantiate his submission.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea with the submission that the police have collected sufficient material during investigation which does not entitle the applicant to be enlarged on bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular the fact that for the worst assuming that the applicant who had developed intimate relations with the deceased said something unsavoury to her details of which are not given may not be an act of instigation but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Anything said here would not affect the case of either side at the trial.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Kapil involved in Case Crime No. 1049 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 306 IPC, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two 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.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) 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 such person from disclosing 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, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Deepak