Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Khalil vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38601 of 2018 Applicant :- Khalil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tawvab Ahmed Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate alongwith two others on behalf of the complaint today in Court is taken on record. A short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the learned A.G.A. today in Court is also taken on record.
Heard Mr. Tawvab Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Khalil seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 203 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Sazid Nagli, District-Amroha.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Talib was solemnized with Rahil on 03.07.2017 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs. However, immediately after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage, an unfortunate incident occurred on 03.07.2018 in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant namely Rahil died. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 04.07.2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the brother of the deceased. According to the Panch witnesses the death of the deceased occurred on account of the injuries found on her body. However, the exact nature of death, i.e. whether it is homicidal or suicidal could not be given. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 04.07.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and therefore, the viscera was preserved. However no external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 04.07.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0203 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.- Sazid Nagli, District-Amroha.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Talib (the husband), Khalil (the father-in-law), the applicant herein, Warisin (the mother-in-law), Amir and Qadir (the Devars) of the deceased were nominated as named accused. Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, the Police has submitted a charge-sheet dated 24.08.2018. The Chemical Analyst has submitted the viscera report dated 06.09.2018. From the perusal of the aforesaid viscera report it is apparent that no chemical compound was found in the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father- in-law of the deceased. The applicant is aged about 70 years and has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. The deceased has died on account of natural death as is evident from the viscera report. As such, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the occurrence has taken place within a period of seven years of marriage and therefore, the presumption arising out of an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. is available to the prosecution. The applicant has failed to discharge the burden as required in law in respect of an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Khalil 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..
(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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 him 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 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 :- 26.10.2018 YK
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Khalil vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 October, 2018
Judges
  • Rajeev Misra
Advocates
  • Tawvab Ahmed Khan