Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39815 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajji Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Rajji Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.389 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C. P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, District-Banda during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with Raji on 12.06.2002 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Approximately after a period of 16 years from the date of marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 08.06.2018 in which the wife of the applicant died by committing suicide. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 09.06.2018 not on the information given by the applicant of any of his family members but on the information given by Nanha Yadav, i.e., the father-of the the deceased. According to the Panch witnesses, no certain opinion could be given regarding the nature of the death of the deceased. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 09.06.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 11.06.2018 by the father of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 389 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C. P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, District-Banda.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., only one person, namely, Rajji Yadav (the husband of the deceased), i.e., the applicant herein was nominated as named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted a charge-sheet dated 24.06.2018 against the present applicant under Section 306 I.P.C. only. Upon submission of the charge-sheet cognizance has been taken by the court concerned by the cognizance taking order dated 30.08.2018. What happened subsequent to the cognizance taking order, has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application or the supplementary affidavit filed today.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, who is a middle aged man, aged about 35 years having no criminal antecedences to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 15.06.2018. Children of the applicant, namely, Amol aged about 12 years, Shikah aged aged about 7 years and Arun aged about 3 years have been deprived of parental love on account of the applicant being in jail. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. There is no evidence on record upto this stage to suggest that the applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that three children were from the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased, who are still in tender age, as such there could hardy be any occasion for the applicant to abet with the deceased for committing the alleged crime. It is next submitted that the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. can be established only during the course of trial as it is subject to trial evidence. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State 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-Rajji Yadav 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 :- 29.10.2018 YK