Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41745 of 2018 Applicant :- Ram Teerath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant today in Court is taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Ram Teerath seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 111 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Gauri Bazar District-Deoria, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Neeta on 12.05.2008. From the aforesaid wedlock a daughter, namely, Pari was born, who is said to be aged about two years in the year 2018. However, approximately after the expiry of a period of nine years from the date of marriage of the present applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 26/27.04.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 27.04.2018 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the mother of the deceased, namely, Sharda Devi In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterised as suicidal. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the same day, i.e. 27.04.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged belatedly after seven days of the occurrence, i.e., on 04.05.2018 by the mother of the deceased, namely, Sharda Devi, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0111 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Gauri Bazar, District-Deoria.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely, Ram Teerath-husband (the applicant herein) and Manjoo-Jethani of the deceased were nominated as named accused. 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 dated 09.07.2018 only against the husband, i.e., the present applicant, under Section 498A and 306 I.P.C. whereas the other named accused, namely, Manjoo has been excluded. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance has been taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 11.07.2018. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. Though the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused yet the applicant is prima-facie innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 13.05.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next submitted that from the wedlock of the applicant with the deceased, a daughter, namely, Pari was born, who is minor, as she is said to be aged about two years in the year 2018. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that looking into the precarious family condition of the applicant, it is impossible to believe that the applicant shall abet in commission of the death of his wife. It is then submitted that the proof of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. Upto this stage, there is no such evidence on record on the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant has abetted in the commission of the alleged crime as there is no evidence to show aid, conspiracy or instigation on the part of the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime.
On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is the thus urged that the present applicant, though he is the husband of the deceased, is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused and is the husband of the deceased. Therefore, the present applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court and the bail application of the applicant is liable to the rejected. However, the learned A.G.A. could dispute the factual as well as legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Ram Teerath 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 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 I.P.C..
(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 I.P.C.
(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 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 :- 29.11.2018 YK