Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43207 of 2018 Applicant :- Ravindra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Ravindra Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharella, District Mahoba during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of Sudeep Singh was solemnized with Arti on 12.6.2011 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, two children namely, Ved and Vansh are said to be born. Both are said to be minors as they are aged about five and two years respectively. After the expiry of a period of six years and eleven months from the date of marriage of the Sudeep Singh, with the deceased an unfortunate incident occurred on 2.6.2018, in which the wife of Sudeep Singh namely, Arti died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 3.6.2018 not on the information of the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by Ram Singh, the father of the deceased. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was suicidal.
The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 3.6.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0059 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kharella, District Mahoba. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons namely, Sudeep Singh (husband), Smt. Savitri (mother-in-law), Ravindra Singh (Mama of the husband of the deceased) were nominated as the accused. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 4.6.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark, no other 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, submitted a charge-sheet dated 9.9.2018 against the three named accused. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 23.9.2018. What has happened subsequent to the cognizance taking order dated 23.9.2018 has neither been disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same has been detailed at the time of the hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Mama of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 7.9.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that the applicant is residing separately from the matrimonial house of the deceased. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed upon the certificate issued by the gram pradhan as well as the family certificate issued by the competent authority. It is then submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Except for the ligature mark no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. Up to this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that the present applicant has even abetted in the commission of the crime. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry. However, the applicant being the Mama of the husband of the deceased, cannot be said to be benificiary of the alleged demand of dowry. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is 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 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 Ravindra 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/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 :- 28.11.2018 Arshad