Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40572 of 2017 Applicant :- Rambriksh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M.S. Chauhan,Shivkumari Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and a rejoinder affidavit filed in reply thereto are taken on record.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Rambriksh Chauhan in connection with Case Crime No. 1109 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A and 306 IPC, P.S. Bhurkura, District Ghazipur.
Heard Sri M.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR against five family members of the in-laws of Geeta was lodged by her brother, Pramod Chauhan alleging a case of murder amongst others being case crime no. 1109 of 2017 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 IPC P.S. Bhurkura, District Ghazipur; that the first information report was lodged as two daughters of Geeta and Sanjay Chauhan lost their lives in what was dubbed as a murder in the FIR; that later on, during investigation, there was absolutely no evidence found as to murder and the case was converted to one under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A, 306 IPC; that after further investigation four out of the five unnamed accused were exculpated by the police and a charge sheet against the present applicant Rambriksh Chauhan who is the father-in-law of Geeta was filed; that it is submitted that from the statement of Geeta recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a copy of which has been annexed as part of RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit and the contents of which are not denied by the learned AGA who has the case diary in hand shows that Geeta had a verbal altercation with her father-in-law of which there was some history on the issue of her going out of the house to do daily chores which the father-in-law would seriously object to and Geeta would retaliate; that on the fateful day i.e. 31.01.2017 Geeta wanted to go to the Bazar with her two daughters and when she was getting ready, the father-in-law stopped her which led to a verbal dual between the two; that led the father-in-law to slap her telling that in case she left home she should not come back or else he would kill her; that Geeta has stated that in a rage with the aforesaid exchange between her and the father-in-law left home along with her two daughters and finding no conveyance she proceeded on foot moving along the railway track with her daughters when suddenly she met with an accident on account of an oncoming train where she survived but her daughters came under the wheels of the train; that in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the aforesaid statement of Geeta makes it clear that it is not at all a case of abetment to suicide but a case of a railway accident, though very unfortunate for the family.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail plea with the submission that the police after investigation have been collected evidence against the applicant which discloses his complicity. As such, he is not entitled to the indulgence to bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, the relationship of the applicant to the deceased, in particular, the statement of Geeta Devi dated 06.10.2017 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Rambriksh Chauhan involved in Case Crime No. 1109 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A and 306 IPC, P.S. Bhurkura, District Ghazipur be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Deepak