Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30660 of 2016 Applicant :- Ravi Shanker @ Sonu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Avinash Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
2. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Ravi Shanker alias Sonu Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 55 of 2016 (State Vs. Ravi Shankar alias Sonu) arising out of Case Crime No. 87 of 2016, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sihari, District-Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial.
3. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Sadhana Singh in the year 2011 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of about five years from the date of the marriage of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 11.5.2016, in which the wife of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was performed on 12.5.2016. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal as it was on account of ante mortem hanging. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 11.5.2016 by the brother of the deceased namely Jitendra Singh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 87 of 2016, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sihari, District-Azamgarh
4. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely, Sonu Singh (the husband), Hansha Devi (the mother -in-law), Rani and Prem Kala the nands of deceased were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.05.2016. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.
A ligature mark in the size 26 cm x 1 cm in front of neck 5 cm below from left ear 4 cm below right ear 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. has submitted a charge- sheet dated 11.5.2017 against the applicant. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon the same by the court concerned and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 355 of 2016 (State Vs. Ravi Shankar alias Sonu) came to be registered and is now said to be pending.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased, but he is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 13.05.2016. Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the order sheet of the pending Sessions Trial. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is urged that the charges were framed on 11.5.2017. However, since then no prosecution witness has appeared before the Court below till date even though a period of more than 1 year and 6 months have rolled by. It is thus urged that since the trial has been delayed by the complainant and his witnesses, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and the wife of the applicant has died within seven years of marriage in the matrimonial house. As such, presumption is available to the prosecution. The burden is upon the applicant himself to explain as to how and why the occurrence took place, for which there is no explanation upto this stage. It is, thus, urged that the bail application of the applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court and therefore, liable to be rejected. However, they could not dispute the factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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 applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Ravi Shanker alias Sonu Singh 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 him 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 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 :- 28.11.2018 HSM