Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37509 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Mishra,Gyanendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Rajju, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of the applicant namely Raj Narayan was solemnized with Savita on 19.2.2018 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Just after the expiry of a period of one month from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 18.3.2018, in which the Bhayau (wife of the younger brother) consumed some poisonous substance. Ultimately, the wife of the brother of the applicant scummbed to the poisonous substance consumed by her. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 18.3.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by Manwa Prasad father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 19.3.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Accordingly, the viscera was preserved. However, no external ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased.
After the expiry of 11 days from the date of occurrence, a belated F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.3.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 067 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Raj Narayan (husband), Chedilal (father-in-law), mother-in-law, Rajju (Jeth) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a charge-sheet dated 9.8.2018 against all the named accused. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet dated 9.8.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been disclosed at the time of hearing of the present bail application, by the learned counsel for the applicant. The Chief Chemical Analyst has submitted a viscera report dated 29.11.2018, in which it has been stated that a foreign chemical compound namely aluminium phosphide was found in the samples of the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 2.7.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Learned counsel for the applicant then submits that the applicant is residing separately from the family of the deceased. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, he has invited the attention of the Court to the extract of the family register, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-SA 1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is thus urged that since the applicant is residing separately from the family of the deceased, the applicant has no concern with the family of the deceased. As such, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
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 Rajju, 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 :- 19.12.2018 Arshad