Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the Applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel contends that the Applicant has been implicated because of his relationship with the husband of the deceased, who is the son of the Applicant; that the Applicant was living separately with the family and he had no concern with the affairs of his son and the deceased; that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant for demand of dowry and consequent harassment or torture of the deceased. It is contended that Reena Devi @ Gena Devi, Rahul, and Arti. who have been a ascribed similar role, have been enlarged on bail in Bail Application No.971 of 2020 (Reena Devi @ Gena Devi v. State), Bail Application No.11729 of 2020 (Rahul v. State) and Bail Application No.857 of 2020 (Arti v. State). It is contended that the Applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.6.2019. The counsel contends that there is no possibility of the Applicant fleeing away from judicial custody or influencing the witnesses.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the Applicant, Ram Ganesh Prajapati involved in Case Crime No.456 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh 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 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 would not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Anupam