Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49293 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramdaras Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kumar Rai,Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. in Court today, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Umesh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Ramdaras, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 148 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahrajganj, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Arjun was solemnized with Chandra Kala on 07.05.2017 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of one year and two months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 29.07.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the present applicant consumed some poisonous substance. Ultimately, the daughter-in-law of the present applicant died. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.07.2018 by Dooij Nishad, father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No.148 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahrajganj, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons namely, Arjun Nishad (husband), Ram Darash Nihsad (father-in-law) and Badami, mother-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 30.07.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased cannot be ascertained. Accordingly, the viscera of the deceased was preserved. However, 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. submitted a charge-sheet dated 03.10.2018 against all the named accused. Upon the submission of the aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the concerned Court, vide cognizance taking order dated 20.10.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant is a fairly aged man. The applicant is in jail since 31.7.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is then urged that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. As per the viscera report of the deceased, the deceased is said to have consumed Aluminium Sulphide. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the F.I.R. regarding the demand of dowry. The applicant cannot be said to be beneficiary of the said demand. The husband of the deceased i.e. the son of the applicant is already languishing in jail. There is no statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. of the deceased, nor there is any dying declaration, nor any suicide note of the deceased has been recovered. The absence of any external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased further speaks of the bona fide of the present applicant. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that the applicant being the father-in-law of the deceased is liable to be enlarged on bail. The co-accused Badami Devi (mother-in-law) of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to the co-accused Badami Devi.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the factual 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 Ramdaras, 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 :- 21.12.2018 Ravi Kant