Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1793 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava,Narendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Sakheshiya Devi, her younger daughter fell in love with applicant and was having live-in relationship with applicant since last 03 years and since they were living as husband and wife despite objection by first informant, she left with applicant on 9.8.2018 at 6:00 p.m. and returned at 11:00 p.m. when she had consumed poison and was disturbed and upon being asked told that applicant has refused to make marriage with her and applicant along with his friend forcibly committed rape on her and administered poison and that she was declared dead at about 4:00 p.m.; that post mortem report of deceased states that cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved and as per viscera report filed with compliance affidavit by learned AGA aluminium phosphide poison was found in parts of her viscera; that undisputedly, applicant is a married person and though deceased was insisting upon him to make marriage and keep her, as his wife, but it was not possible for him and upon his refusal, if she has consumed sulphas tablet or some other poisonous substance in order to commit suicide, applicant has no concern and may not be held guilty; that there is no incriminating evidence to show that since before marriage, deceased was raped by someone; that there is no incriminating evidence to suggest that applicant caused any abetment or instigation to deceased for committing suicide; that applicant neither administered any poison to deceased nor abetted her for committing suicide; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 16.8.2018.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Ramu be released on bail in Case Crime No.190 of 2018, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S. Vishunpura, District Kushinagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Tamang