Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48115 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohd. Amin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Farooq Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mohd. Farooq, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Sadakat seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.
P. Act, Police Station- Saini, District- Kaushambi, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely Mohd. Haseen was solemnized with Farheen on 22.10.2013 in accordance with the Muslim rites and customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of four years and six months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 06.05.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she consumed some poisonous substance. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 06.05.2018 not on the information of the present applicant or any of his family members, but on the information given by the brother of the deceased, namely, Masarrat Mustafa. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The post- mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 07.05.2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that no definite opinion can be assigned regarding the cause of death of the deceased. However, no external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. Accordingly, viscera of the deceased was directed to be preserved. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 06.05.2018 by Masarrat Mustafa, the brother of the deceased and was registered as Case Crime No. 0222 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Saini, District- Kaushambi.
In the aforesaid first information report five persons, namely, Malika (mother-in-law), Ruma (Nanad), Amir (Devar), Mohd. Haseen (husband) and Mohd. Amin (father-in-law) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. One of the co- accused, namely, mother-in-law of the deceased approached this Court by means of a criminal misc. writ petition, wherein this Curt is said to have stayed the arrest of the aforesaid accused. The police on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted a charge-sheet dated 29.10.2018 against the husband and father-in-law of the deceased. Upon submission of the said charge-sheet cognizance has been taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 23.11.2018. The Chief Chemical Analyst concerned has submitted the viscera report dated 04.09.2018 in which 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 father-in-law of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is aged about 49 years. The applicant is in jail since 24.10.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. The deceased was short tempered lady and she taken extreme step of committing suicide by consuming Aluminium Phosphide, as is found from the viscera report of the deceased. The absence of any external ante- mortem injury on the body of the deceased clearly speaks of the bonafide of the present applicant. The applicant is the father-in- law of the deceased and he has no role to play in the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. The husband of the deceased i.e. the son of the applicant is already languishing in the jail. As such, it is urged that the present applicant, being the father-in-law of the deceased, is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State 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-Mohd. Amin 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 :- 19.12.2018 Pkb/