Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44775 of 2018 Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Dulare Singh,Mayank Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Dulare Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Ram Lakhan seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 657-A of 2008 (State Versus Ram Lakhan & Others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Malpura, District Agra during the pendency of the above mentioned sessions trial, which is said to be pending in the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the younger brother of the applicant, namely, Banti @ Ram Kishan was solemnized with Rekha Sharma on 21st May, 2005. However, after expiry of a period of two years and ten months from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 9th April, 2008, in which the bhyahu of the applicant i.e. the wife of the brother of the applicant Rekha Sharma died on account of gun shot injury sustained by her. The inquest of the body of the deceased was performed on 9th April, 2008 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the brother of the deceased, namely, Ajay Kumar. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be homicidal. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 9th April, 2008 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Ajay Kumar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0235 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra. In the aforesaid first information report, seven persons, namely, Banti @ Ram Kishan-the husband, Shiv Shankar Sharma-Jeth, Ram Lakhan-Jeth i.e. the present applicant, Shyam Sharma-Jeth, Rama Shankar Sharma-Devar, Radhey Sharma-brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased and Radhey-Nanand of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the next day of the occurrence i.e. 10th April, 2008. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-
mortem fire arm injuries. Except for a single fire arm injury, no external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The Police, upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., has submitted a charge-sheet 23rd April, 2008 against Banti @ Ram Kishan the husband of the deceased only. Other six persons named in the aforesaid first information report were excluded. After completion of the necessary exercise in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions and came to be registered as Sessions Trial No. 657 of 2008 (State Versus Banti @ Ram Kishan). During the pendency of the aforesaid sessions trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant for the other named accused in the first information report dated 9th April, 2008. This application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. came to be allowed by the court below vide order dated 8th October, 2010. The order dated 8th October, 2010 summoning the present applicant along with others under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was challenged before this Court by means of a Criminal Revision, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 5259 of 2010. In the aforesaid criminal revision, an interim order dated 29th October, 2010 was passed, whereby the further proceedings of the aforesaid sessions trial were stayed. On account of the interim order dated 29th October, 2010, passed by this Court, the trial of the present applicant along with others was segregated and accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 657-A of 2008 (State Versus Ram Lakhan & Others), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Malpura, District Agra came to be registered. The criminal revision filed by the present applicant along with others challenging the order dated 8th October, 2010 came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 8th April, 2013. Thereafter a recall application was filed seeking recall of the order dated 8th April, 2013 passed by this Court dismissing the criminal revision in default, which also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14th November, 2013. In the interregnum, Sessions Trial No. 657 of 2008 (State Versus Banti @ Ram Kishan) came to be decided vide judgment and order dated 15th November, 2011, whereby the accused Banti @ Ram Kishan was convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. and was awarded life imprisonment. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the husband of the deceased i.e. Banti @ Ram Kisha is still in jail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is Jeth of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 22nd September, 2018. It is next contended that in view of the post-mortem report pertaining to the deceased, it is apparently clear that the deceased has died on account of solitary gun shot injury sustained by her. The role of firing has been established against the husband i.e. the brother of the applicant, namely, Banti. Therefore, prima facie at this stage the applicant is is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. However, the factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Ram Lakhan 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.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Sushil/-