Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44877 of 2017 Applicant :- Nazim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amber Khanna,Raj Kumar Khanna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Nazim in Case Crime No. 177 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Didauli, District Amroha.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been implicated in the crime only on account of fact that he is the husband; that there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the applicant is employed abroad, that is to say in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and had left India on 21.01.2017 returning home on 08.06.2017, in regard whereof there are specific averment in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit along with the documents of travel annexed; that in the submission of the learned counsel the applicant being not in the country there is no possibility of the applicant being particeps criminis; that it is further submitted that a perusal of the FIR also shows that the allegation directed against him is one of conspiracy with the principal allegation being against the father-in-law and mother-in-law; that the applicant in the submission of the learned counsel is no way to blame for the suicide committed by the deceased on account of facts best known to her as he was not within reach and in the country; that the circumstances in which the deceased consumed poison as proved from the report are also utterly beyond the applicant's involvement or understanding and whatever happened was in his absence from the country. It is further submitted that father-in-law and mother-in-law against whom the main allegations are there have already been admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case of unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial home with an antecedent dowry demand. They have further submitted that the applicant being the husband even though living in a different country is answerable in the matter.
Considering the nature of allegation, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that applicant was admittedly outside the country but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Nazim involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will surrender his passport to the trial court within 24 hours of his release from jail and the same will not be returned to him during pendency of the trial. The applicant will not leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the trial court without seeking prior leave of that Court.
2. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
3. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
4. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it is open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the trial pending before the concerned court below be concluded within six months next from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures to ensure their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Imroz