Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45577 of 2018 Applicant :- Krishna Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Krishna Pal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Shahi, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Chetram was solemnized with Pooja on 28.10.2017 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 27.04.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 29.04.2018 i.e. two days after the occurrence not on the information given by the present applicant or any of his family members, but on the information given by Bhoop Ram, father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 29.04.2018. 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. Accordingly, the viscera was preserved. Doctor further found four ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, which are detailed herein below:-
(1) Contusion on lower face 14 cm x 7 cm extending from below the nose to 2 cm below chin and 5 cm medial to right ear 4 cm medial to left ear.
(2) Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm just above right eye brow fore head.
(3) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on plamer aspect of palm just below the thumb.
(4) Old abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on flexor aspect of right elbow.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.4.2018 by Bhoop Ram the father of the deceased and was registered Case Crime No. 108 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Shahi, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Chet Ram (husband), Krishnapal Kashyap, (father-in-law), father-in-law and Surajpal, (devar) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted the charge sheet dated 19.8.2018 against three of the named accused. The devar of the deceased namely Surajpal has been excluded. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet, has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been disclosed at the time of hearing of the present bail application by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 24.07.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is then submitted that as per the viscera report dated 27.10.2018 no foreign chemical compound was found in the body of the deceased. As such, no case of poisoning is made out. It is thus urged that the death of the daughter-in-law of the applicant appears to be natural. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the present applicant being the father-in-law of the deceased and an old man is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant particularly on the medical evidence in the case.
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-Krishna Pal 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