Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31922 of 2018 Applicant :- Layak Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Verma,Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.268 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Mangalpur, District-Kanpur Dehat is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It is a case of bail jumping. The applicant did not turn up on the date fixed i.e. 26.08.2017, though, vide order dated 30.05.2017 passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court while granting bail to the applicant, it was one of the conditions that he will cooperate in the trial bonafidely without seeking adjournments, therefore, the concerned court below issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant on the aforesaid date fixed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant(father of the deceased) has lodged the FIR on 15.06.2015 mentioning the name of the applicant and other family members for assaulting the deceased for demand of additional dowry. As per post mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The applicant is the brother-in-law(Nandoi) of the deceased. Learned counsel next submitted that the applicant could not inform the concerned court for his inability to attend the court and the court issued non-bailable warrant against him. The applicant immediately moved an application for recall of the order dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Dehat but the same was rejected and the applicant was sent behind the bar on 06.02.2018 and since then, he is languishing in jail.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Layak Singh, involved in case crime no.268 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Mangalpur, District-Kanpur Dehat be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with an undertaking that he would present on each and every date and cooperate in trial 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 :- 23.8.2018 Sumit S