Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20918 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Babita Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant through Video Conferencing and Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned AGA for the State, who has also appeared through Video Conferencing.
Perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Rajeev Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.261 of 2020, under Section(s) 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, registered at P.S. Barkheda, District Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the deceased died a natural death which is evident from the post mortem examination in which the doctor has opined the cause of death as septicemic shock as a result of ante mortem septicemia with chronic illness. It is further argued that the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination further found multiple pus pocket present in lungs. It is argued that as such the prosecution case that the deceased Smt. Poonam was subjected to cruelty and died a dowry death is false as the death is natural.
It is further argued that the deceased did not receive any other bodily injury as is evident from the post mortem examination report itself as the doctor has specifically mentioned that no ante mortem injury was seen. It is argued that the prosecution case as such is full of lies and is a falsity. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para- 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 14.2.2021.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is husband of the deceased. It is argued that marriage of the applicant and the deceased was solemnized around two years back and the deceased died in her matrimonial house. But learned A.G.A. could not dispute the finding of the doctor given in the post mortem examination report regarding cause of death and the conditions of lungs as noted therein.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the death of the deceased was due to septicemic shock and lungs were found to be full of pus. The deceased was even admitted in a hospital as per annexure no. 6 of the affidavit and was under treatment.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Rajeev Kumar, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 24.5.2021 Naresh Digitally signed by Justice Samit Gopal Date: 2021.05.24 17:06:01 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad