Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48790 of 2018 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the complainant, who has put in appearance by filing his Vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Rahul seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 361 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Kamalganj, District- Farrukhabad, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that an unfortunate incident occurred on 18.08.2018, in which a young girl Neha died, as she jumped before a moving train. This fact came into light on the basis of the statement of the gate-man Kuldeep. As such the aforesaid witness is an eyewitness of the occurrence. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged belatedly after 11 days from the date of occurrence i.e. on 29.08.2018 by the uncle of the deceased, namely, Pawan Rajput, which was registered as Case Crime No. 361 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Kamalganj, District- Farrukhabad.
In the aforesaid first information report the applicant was nominated as solitary accused. According to the allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that the deceased had disclosed to her family members that she was in love with applicant for more than one year and six months. However, one day some hot talk took place in between the applicant and the deceased and thereafter the deceased has committed suicide. It is, thus, the prosecution case is that the deceased has committed suicide because of the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the first information report can be said to be the cause behind the occurrence but will certainly not amount to abatement in terms of Section 107 Cr.P.C. read with 306 I.P.C. To support his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2018 (102) ALLCC 156. It is next submitted that the proof of the charge under Section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. Up to this stage, there is no such evidence on record to establish that the present applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of alleged offence. In short, the submission is that the applicant is being prosecuted for an unabated crime. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the factual 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 the learned counsel for the complainant 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- Rahul 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 :- 20.12.2018 Pkb/