Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44716 of 2018 Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.P.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing his vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Manoj seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 321 of 2018, under Sections 306, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial of the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnised with Sangeeta on 30th January, 2005 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, two children, namley Dhoni and Neha are said to be born. Both are said to be minors as they are aged about 12 and 10 years respectively. One fact may also be noted that the real sister of Sangeeta, namely, Sarita is married to the real brother of the applicant. Thus, two real sisters are married to two real brothers and were residing in the same household. However, after the expiry of a period of 13 years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 25th July, 2018 in which the wife of the applicant, namely, Sangeeta consumed some poisonous substance. It is the case of the applicant that upon the happening of the occurrence, the victim was rushed to the hospital, but she succumbed to the poisonous substance consumed by her. No information regarding the aforesaid incident was given to the Police Station concerned as required under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the body of the deceased was disposed of. However, on the same date i.e. 25th July, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. in the evening a first information report was lodged by the brother of the deceased, namely, Dheeraj, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0321 of 2018, under Sections 306, 201 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh. In the aforesaid first information report, four persons, namely, Manoj-the husband i.e. the present applicant, Mukesh-Jeth, Chhotelal-the father-in-law and Premwati-the mother-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated 5th October, 2018 against the present applicant only. Rest of the named accused in the first information report dated 25th July, 2018, were excluded. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet dated 5th October, 2018 has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the same has been disclosed by either of the learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is husband and the occurrence has taken place within seven years of their marriage but the applicant is innocent. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail 1st October, 2018. Inviting the attention of the Court to the statement of the two minor children of the applicant and the deceased, namely, Dhoni and Neha, which are at page 16 of the paper-book, he submits that the deceased has committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. He further submits that the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. There is no evidence upto this stage, on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant has abetted in the commission of the alleged crime by way of aid, conspiracy or instigation. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is, thus, urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, has supported the case of the present applicant by submitting that the first information report dated 25th July, 2018 has been lodged at the instigation of Tanuj with whom the wife of the present applicant i.e. Sangeeta was alleged to have a love affair.
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 Manoj 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.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Sushil/-