Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40763 of 2018 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh,Ajay Kumar Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Narendra Singh along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Manoj Kumar, for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0056 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B/34, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Gudia on 07.12.2012 from the aforesaid wedlock a son namely, Prince was born, which is aged about four years. An unfortunate incident occurred in the night of 22.01.2018/23.01.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died in mysterious circumstances. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.01.2018, according to the Panch witnesses the death of the deceased was homicidal. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid has been lodged on 23.01.2018 by the father of the deceased which was registered as Case Crime No. 0056 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B/34, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. six persons namely, Manoj the husband, Seema (Nanad), Yogendra the driver of Manoj, Satyaveer (Mama) of the husband of the deceased, Naresh the villager were nominated as the named accused. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 24.01.2018. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. Apart from the above the doctor also found four external injuries on the body of the deceased the details of which are on the record at page 38 of the paper book. The police ultimately submitted a charge sheet dated dated 18.06.2018 against the present applicant i.e. the husband of the deceased, whereas the investigation in respect of the other co-accused is still going on.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the time in place of occurrence. To buttress his submission he has relied upon the letter dated 17.02.2018 issued by the OIC Docu Cell 51 Rashtriya Rifles. The aforesaid letter contains a categorical recital that the applicant was on duty from 12 October to 12 December 2017. Thereafter the applicant joined on duty on 13.12.2017. On the aforesaid factual premise it is submitted that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
It is also submitted that the two other accused persons namely, Vijay Kumar and Seema have already enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.09.2018 and 04.09.2018.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the accused have been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and the offence in question is one in which the dead body of the deceased has been destroyed without any information to the police. The applicant is the husband of the deceased and his case stands on a different footing than the co- accused who have been enlarged on bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material on record and 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.
Let the applicant-Manoj Kumar 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 Rahul.