Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45067 of 2018 Applicant :- Om Prakash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandrakant Tripathi,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Chandrakant Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Om Prakash Yadav, seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 111 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau, now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mau, during the pendency of the aforesaid trial.
From the record it appears that the marriage of Chandrabhan was solemnized with Ankita on 17.6.2017. However, even before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the marriage of Chandrabhan an unfortunate incident occurred on 24.1.2018, in which the wife Ankita died as she committed suicide by drowning herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.1.2018 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by Chandan (brother of the deceased). In the opinion of the Panch witnesses no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of the deceased. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 25.1.2018. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia, as a result of ante-mortem drowning. The FIR in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 25.1.2018 by Chandan, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0021 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, PS Haldharpur, District Mau. In the aforesaid FIR, four persons, namely Chandrabhan Yadav (husband), mother-in-law, Rameeta Yadav (Jethani) and Jai Ram Yadav were nominated as named accused. The statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in his second statement also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the first informant has taken the name of the present applicant by stating that the name of the present applicant was wrongly transcribed as Jai Prakash Yadav. The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime no. has submitted the charge sheet dated 13.4.2018 against 5 persons including the present applicant. Upon the submission of the charge sheet dated 13.4.2018, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and, thereafter, the case was submitted to the court of Sessions. Accordingly S.T. No. 111 of 2018 (State Vs. Chandrabhan and others) came to be registered in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mau which is said to be pending.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the son of the Mama of the husband of the deceased. The applicant is innocent and he is in jail since 17.2.2018. The applicant is residing separately at Ballia, which is established from the extract of the family register, photo copy of which is on the record at page 70 of the paper book. He further submits that two co-accused namely, Ramita Devi and Sursati have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to the co-accused Ramita Devi and Sursati, as such the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, learned AGA would not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. 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.
Let the applicant-Om Prakash Yadav 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 :- 27.11.2018 Ravi Kant