Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48497 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajaram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Satendra Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Rajaram seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2018 (State Versus Makkulal & Others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sehramau Narth, District Pilibhit and arising out of Case Crime No. 0130 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sehramau Narth, District Pilibhit during the pendency of the above mentioned sessions trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Makku Lal was solemnized with Meena Devi 18th February, 2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. Just after expiry of a short period of four months and one day from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 19th June, 2018, in which, the daughter-in-law of the applicant died. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 20th June, 2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the brother of the deceased, namely, Mohan Lal @ Mohan Kumar. 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 20th June, 2018. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. Following ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased:
"A transverse ligature mark size 17 cm x 1.5 cm present anteriorly & both lateral side of the neck below the thyroid cartilage. Ligature mark situated 8 cm from (L) ear lobule and 7 cm. from chin & 6 cm from (R) lobule of ear.
On opening subcutaneous tissue underneath the ligature mark as Echymosed."
A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 20th June, 2018 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Mohan Lal/ Mohan Kumar, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. Case Crime No. 0130 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sehramau Narth, District Pilibhit. In the aforesaid first information report, three persons, namely, Makku Lal the husband i.e. the applicant herein, Rajaram the father-in- law and Smt. Sushila Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police, upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, has submitted a charge-sheet dated 15th July, 2018 against the aforesaid three named accused. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 15th July, 201, cognizance was taken by the court concerned and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Consequently, Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2018 (State Versus Makkulal & Others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sehramau Narth, District Pilibhit came into existence.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is an old man aged about 53 yeas and is in jail since 21st July, 2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Referring to the documents, which have been brought on record as Annexure 9 to the affidavit accompanying the present bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has seven children, out of seven, six children are minor including four minor girls. It is also urged that the deceased was a short tempered lady and on account of dispute with his husband, she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Only general and omnibus allegations have been made against the applicant only to give colour to the first information report. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that there cannot be any demand of dowry at the behest of the present applicant and therefore, looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the complainant inviting the attention of the Court to the post- mortem report of the deceased, photo copy of which is on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the present bail application, submits that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. Ante- mortem injuries were also found on the body of the deceased. The learned A.G.A. further submits that the incident in which the wife of the applicant died, has taken place just after expiry of a period of four months from the date of the marriage of the son of the applicant. Therefore, the burden is upon the applicant himself to explain as to how the occurrence took place, which burden has not been discharged by the applicant upto this stage and is required to be discharged in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. As such, no case for bail of the present applicant is made out and the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. However, the learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and 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 Rajaram 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 :- 18.12.2018 Arshad