Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3077 of 2019 Applicant :- Raghuveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahipal Singh,Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mahipal Singh assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Raghuveer, (father-in-law), seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 420 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely, Rahul was solemnized with Mina Yadav on 1.5.2014 in accordance with Hidu Rites and Customs. However, the relationship between the husband and the wife as well as the in-laws was not compatible. This led to the lodging of an F.I.R. dated 15.3.2018, which was registered as Case Crime No. 420 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. Subsequently, the parties entered into a compromise. Pursuant to the compromise, the son and daughter-in-law took another house and started living separately from the family of the deceased. Just after the expiry of a period of four years one month and ten days from the date of the marriage of the son of the applicant and approximately, after three months from the date of separate living of the son and daughter-in-law of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.6.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant consumed some poisonous substance at her rented house. It is the case of the applicant that immediately after the occurrence took place, the applicant got the victim admitted at Medhansh Hospital, Bareilly on 21.6.2018, where she underwent treatment upto 21.6.2018. On 21.6.2018, the Doctors at Medhansh Hospital, Bareilly referred the victim to another hospital namely, S.R.G. Medical, Bareilly. Accordingly, the victim was discharged from the aforesaid hospital on 21.6.2018. Thereafter, the victim was admitted at Sri Ram Ganga Hospital, Bareilly and she underwent treatment at the aforesaid hospital up to 23.6.2018. Ultimately, the victim succumbed to poisonous substance consumed by her on 23.6.2018. The information regarding the death of the deceased was conveyed at the concerned police station by the ward boy of Sri Ram Ganga Hospital, Bareilly. On the basis of the said information, the inquest of the deceased was conducted on 24.6.2018. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 24.6.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that no definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Accordingly, the viscera was preserved. However, no other external ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.
A belated F.I.R. dated 27.6.2018 was lodged after four days of the occurrence by Dhirendra, the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 420 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R., ten persons namely, Rahul (husband), Raghuveer (father-in-law), Ramshri (mother-in-law), Doly, Pooja, Gudiya, Babli (Nand), Sukhveer, Rajesh, Pooran (Nandoi), of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a charge-sheet dated 6.9.2018 only against three the named accused i.e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Rest of the named accused were excluded in the charge sheet. Upon submission of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken vide cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 22.9.2018, has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present bail application. The Chief Chemical Analyst has submitted the viscera report dated 27.10.2018, in which it has been stated that a foreign chemical compound namely, Organo Phosphorus Insecticide 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 an old man aged about 61 years and is in jail since 25.8.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that subsequent to the compromise arrived at between the parties, in Case Crime No. 123 of 2018, son and daughter-in-law of the applicant started living separately in a rented house. As such, the applicant was living separately from the family of the deceased. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that since the applicant was residing separately from the family of the deceased, the applicant has no concern with the family life of the deceased. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by consuming Aluminium Phosphorous Insecticide as is evident from the viscera report dated 27.10.2018, pertaining to the deceased. The absence of any external ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased, clearly denotes the bonafide of the applicant. There is no statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no dying declaration of the deceased either. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry. The applicant cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry. The Co-accused Ramshree (mother-in-law) of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.1.2019. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the co-accused Ramshree. As such, the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Raghuveer, 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.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Arshad