Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34879 of 2018 Applicant :- Mithun @ Gurudeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, Advocate on behalf of the informant today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant 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.317 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, Police Station-Patiyali, District- Kasganj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The present FIR came into existence on 24.08.2018 through Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The applicant got married with the deceased about eight years back. The couple were blessed with one son. The allegation is that there was a demand of additional dowry of Rs. one lac. On 28.06.2017, the informant has received information that his daughter is in critical condition and some froth is coming out from her mouth. He told that on account of additional dowry, her in-laws were not giving meals for so many days. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Dr. R.K. Gupta, M.B.B.S. M.D. recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C who states that since 27.06.2017, she was under his treatment. On the second time, she was on the family way. The pregnancy was about four months and she was suffering from jaundice. Her jaundice level was 7.2 SGPT(quite high). As per the doctor's opinion, the deceased was suffering from jaundice as well as pregnancy which is a deadly combination. The informant, in 161 Cr.P.C. statement has clearly mentioned that her son-in-law(applicant) was habitual drunkard and intoxicant. In totality of the circumstances, the cause mentioned in the FIR appears to be false one and opinion of the doctor that she died on account of jaundice, appears to be more feasible reason. There is no allegation of any abetment on the part of the applicant(husband). The applicant is in jail since 17.05.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant 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-Mithun @ Gurudeep, involved in case crime no.317 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, Police Station-Patiyali, District-Kasganj be released on bail 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 IPC.
(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 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 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.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 Sumit S