Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23993 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Sahay Bind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.x Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Mishra,Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Sri Bijay Kumar Srivastava filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, first informant, learned AGA and perused the record.
Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that for the incident alleged to have occurred on 15.10.2017, whereby the deceased was burnt to death, the FIR was registered by Bhai Lal, father of the deceased on 17.10.2017, though he himself has not only participated in the inquest proceedings but also one of the signatories therein. There is nothing on record during the entire investigation of the case to indicate that at any point of time the applicant abated the alleged victim due to which she ought to have committed suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant further drawn attention of the Court towards other relevant documents to establish that the alleged victim along with her two kids was trapped in an electricity short circuit mishap wherein all the three lost their lives. He next argued that after much consultation the instant FIR was registered giving colour of murder under section 302 IPC and the police after conducting investigation submitted charge sheet under section 306 IPC. It is further argued that after 13 years of marriage with the applicant, a demand of dowry for Rs. Two Lakhs was allegedly made by the accused applicant and on account of non fullfilment of the aforesaid additional demand of dowry she was burnt along with her two kids but the fact remains that there is not an iota of evidence to show that any act of abatement was done by the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 08.01.2019, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned counsel for private opposite party as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Ram Sahay Bind, involved in Case Crime No. 608 of 2017, under section 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur be released on bail 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 IPC.
(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 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 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.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019 shailesh