Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40746 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajendra Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Rajendra Nishad, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khajni, District Gorakhpur during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Rajesh was solemnized with Manju on 5.5.2017 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 3.5.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died by committing suicide. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 4.5.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family member but on the information given by the mother of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be suicidal.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 4.5.2018, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0132 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khajni, District Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Rajesh (husband), Rajendra Nishad (father-in-law), Atvari Devi, Rana Pratap were nominated as the accused persons. Post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 5.5.2015. 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 anti mortem hanging. Upon competition of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, the Police submitted a charge-sheet dated11.9.2018 against two of the named accused persons namely, Rajesh (husband) and Rajendra Nishad (father-in-law) of the deceased. What has happened subsequent to the charge sheet dated 11.9.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application.
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 65 years, having no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Except for the ligature mark no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased. The allegations with regard to the demand of the dowry made in the F.I.R. are vague and general allegations as prior to the lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R., no grievance was raised by the deceased regarding the allegations made in the F.I.R. before any police officer or otherwise. It is thus submitted that the applicant is innocent and is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has disputed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that since the occurrence has taken place within a period of one year of marriage, therefore, the burden is upon the applicant to explain the circumstances in which the deceased committed suicide. It is thus urged that no case for grant of bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
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 Rajendra Nishad, 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 :- 26.10.2018 Arshad