Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40645 of 2020 Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.368 of 2019, under Section 498A, 302 IPC, Police Station-Tirwa, District-Kannauj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The next submission is that the informant Hari Om, brother of the deceased has lodged the present FIR against Rohit Pandey(husband), Rajendra Prasad(applicant), Sunita(mother- in-law) and Shivam(brother-in-law) with the allegation that the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year 2011 with Rohit Pandey. On account of scanty dowry, there was ill- treatment against her by all the named accused persons. The couple were blessed with one son and two daughters and on 02.10.2019 around ten in the day, all the accused persons set her ablaze.
The next contention is that the applicant is named in the FIR. The date of incident is 02.10.2019 and she took her last breath on 08.10.2019 on account of septicaemia. During this period, she has given her statement before S.D.M. as well as to the I.O. concern.
I have perused the statement given to the S.D.M. dated 02.10.2019 as well as to the Investigating Officer dated 03.10.2019. In her dying declarations, she has given divergent textures to the prosecution story. In the earlier statement, she has attributed the role of pouring kerosene oil upon the applicant, whereas, in the subsequent statement, she has attributed the role to the mother-in-law who has been admitted on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.09.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.12011 of 2020, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-13 to the application. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that deceased and her husband used to reside separately and they have distinct and separate domestic entity for a considerable period and thus, there was no occasion or reason for any harassment on the part of the applicant. It is further contended that it is the applicant who has brought the deceased to the hospital to establish her bonafides, that he has got no ill-motive to commit this offence. The applicant is aged old person. Taking into account the entirety of the circumstances that deceased has given two divergent stories and the conduct of the applicant as well as period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, he is liable to be released on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.10.2019.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant, Rajendra Prasad, who is involved in case crime no.368 of 2019, under Section 498A, 302 IPC, Police Station-Tirwa, District-Kannauj, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(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 IPC.
(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 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 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. 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 :- 5.4.2021 Sumit S