Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40717 of 2018 Applicant :- Lokesh @ Lauki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Madhava Nand Shukla,Ram Chandra Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Chandra Kushwaha
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Madhava Nand Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Ram Chandra Kushwaha, the learned counsel for the complainant.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Lokesh @ Lauki seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Thana Bhawan, District-Shamli, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the first first informant, namely, Ankit was solemnized with Arti on 04.05.2017 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of one year and 13 days from the date of marriage of the son of the first informant, namely, Ankit, an unfortunate incident occurred on 17.05.2018, in which the son of the first informant, namely, Ankit committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 17.05.2018 on the information given by a third person. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterised as suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 17.05.2018 by Meethu, the father of the deceased, which came was registered as Case Crime No. 0239 of 2018 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S.- Thana Bhawan, District-Shamli.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely, Ashok and Lokesh and two unnamed accused were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 12.07.2018 only against two of the nominated accused, namely, Ashok and Lokesh. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet dated 12.07.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present bail application. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 18.05.2018. 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 of the deceased was preserved. However, no external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. Subsequently, the Chief Chemical Analyst concerned has submitted the viscera report dated 01.12.2018, in which it has been stated that a foreign chemical compound, namely, Aluminium Phosphide, was found in the samples of the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the relative of the wife of the deceased. In the present case, it is the husband, who has committed suicide on the ground that his in-laws refused to send the wife of the deceased with him. The applicant is in Jail since 08.07.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is then submitted that upto this stage, there is no evidence to show that the present applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. In short, the submission is that there is no abetment on the part of the present applicant. The proof of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. It is next submitted that the recital contained in the F.I.R. can be said to be the cause behind the occurrence but that will not amount to abetment in terms of Section 107 I.P.C. read with Section 306 I.P.C. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed upon the judgement of Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2018 (102) ALLCC, 156. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submits that the applicant is not only a named accused but also a charge-sheeted accused and therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant 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-Lokesh @ Lauki 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 :- 20.12.2018 YK