Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44270 of 2018 Applicant :- Rani Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application has been filed by the applicants Rani Devi, Thakur Prasad and Hari Prasad seeking their enlargement of bail in Case Crime No. 704 of 2018 under Sections 306, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant no.1 Rani Devi was solemnized with Managal Singh, the complainant herein on 17th April, 2014. However, the relationship between the applicant no.1 Rani Devi and her husband Mangal Singh became incompatible. Faced with despair and destitution, the applicant no.1 Rani Devi initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the said proceedings a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 8th July, 2017 and consequently, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. came to be terminated. After expiry of a period of four years and two months from the date of marriage of the applicant no.1 and the complainant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 29th July, 2018, in which the father-in-law of the deceased Ram Pal died, as he committed suicide by hanging himself. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged by Mangal Singh the husband of the applicant no.1 on 29th June, 2018, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0704 of 2018 under Sections 306, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya. In the aforesaid first information report, three persons, namely, Rani Devi the daughter-in-law of the deceased, Thakur Prasad and Hari Prasad the brother-in-laws of the complainant were nominated as the named accused. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 29th June, 2018 on the information given by Managal the husband of the applicant no.1. 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 29th June, 2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Apart from the ligature mark, one minor mark was also noted on the body of the deceased. Upon competition of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Police has submitted a charge-sheet dated 7th August, 2018 against the named accused in the aforesaid case crime number. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet dated 7th August, 2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the same has been disclosed either by the learned counsel for the applicants or the learned A.G.A. at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of the complainant. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the real brothers of applicant no.1 and therefore, brother-in-laws of the complainant. The applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. The applicants are in jail since 24th August, 2018. It is then contended that the proof of charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. There is no such evidence upto this stage, on the basis of which it can be said that the applicants have abetted in the commission of alleged crime by way of aid, conspiracy or instigation. The recital contained in the first information report may be the cause behind the occurrence but that cannot be said to be abetment in terms of Section 306 I.P.C. It is lastly contended that the relationship between the applicant no.1 and the complainant, who are husband and wife are not cordial. Therefore, the applicant no.1 i.e. wife and her two real brothers have been falsely implicated. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants. However, the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.
Let the applicants Rani Devi, Thakur Prasad and Hari Prasad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond each and two- 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR 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 THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 THEM 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 APPLICANTS.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their 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.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Sushil/-