Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45871 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, 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 application for bail has been filed by the applicant Ramesh Chandra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.132 of 2017 under Sections 306 IPC, P.S. Sikandrarau, District Hathras.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of Reena was solemnized with Deen Dayal on 12.02.2016. However after the expiry of a period of one year and one month from the date of marriage of Reena the husband namely Deen Dayal committed suicide. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 13.03.2017, on the information given by the father of the deceased namely Ashok. In the opinion of the panch witnesses the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The post- mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the same date i.e. on 13.3.2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained. Accordingly, the viscera of the deceased was preserved. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged by the father of the deceased namely Ashok on 13.03.2017, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0132 of 2017, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Sikandrarau, District Hathras. In the aforesaid F.I.R. six persons namely Reena (wife), Saroj (mother-in-law), Manoj (sadu) of the deceased, Aashu (brother-in-law) of the present applicant, Ramesh (mausa of the wife of the deceased) and Pinki (sister-in-law) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid Case Crime number has submitted the charge sheet against four persons. However, two of the named accused namely Manoj and Pinku have been excluded. The Chief Chemical Analyst submitted the viscera report dated 12.03.2018. The analyst found a foreign substance namely Aluminium phosphate in the samples of the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. He is in jail since 05.10.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that the proof of the charge under Section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. Up to this stage, there is no such evidence against the applicant on the basis of which it can be said that the present applicant has aided conspired or instigated in the commission of the alleged crime. In short the submission is that there is no abatement on the part of the applicant. It is thus urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per Contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he 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, and without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Ramesh Chandra, 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 :- 18.12.2018 HSM