Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41539 of 2018 Applicant :- Ram Prasad @ Munna Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Hari Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Ram Prasad @ Munna Lal, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2018 under Sections 304B, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Aunchha, District Mainpuri during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Anuj Pratap was solemnized with Akansha on 28.11.2017 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Just after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of the marriage of the son of the applicant, the daughter-in-law of the applicant namely, Akansha died on 4.3.2018 in mysterious circumstances. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 4.3.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the father of the deceased namely Rajveer Singh. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be homicidal.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 4.3.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 054 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Aunchha, District Mainpuri. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely, Anuj Kumar (husband), Alok (Jeth) Vipin (Devar), Ramprasad (father-in-law), Pamita (Jethani), were nominated as the accused. Post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 5.3.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. Apart from the aforesaid, the Doctor further found two ante-mortem external injuries on the body of the deceased, the details of which are given herein below:-
i) contusion of size 2 x 2 cm present on back of left forearm, 4 cm below from left elbow joint.
ii) contusion of size 3.5 x 1.5 cm present on back of right hand.
The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., submitted a charge-sheet dated 31.7.2018 against the husband, father-in-law, the present applicant and the Jethani Pamita. Two of the named accused have been excluded. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance has been taken upon the same. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charges have been framed vide charge framing order dated 17.2.2018. Pamita (Jethani) of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 31.7.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 5.4.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is residing with his elder son namely Alok. To substantiate the plea of separate living, subsequently an affidavit has been filed in Court today and along with the same Voter I.D. card of Udit Pratap has been appended to show that the applicant is living separately. It is also contended that the wife of Udit Pratap who is daughter-in-law of the applicant has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 31.7.2018. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of Pamita. It is thus submitted that the applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the 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 Ram Prasad @ Munna Lal, 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 :- 26.11.2018 Arshad