Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21690 of 2018
Applicant :- Ravindra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sheetal Prasad Chakravorty, learned counsel for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Ravindra with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.36 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 326-A I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act, Police Station Saraimeer, District Azamgarh.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged against husband, brother-in-law (devar) and mother- in-law with the allegation that the victim was tortured for non- fulfilment of dowry demand. On 28.08.2018 at about 4.00 p.m. all the accused persons came inside the room where the victim was sleeping and after using abusive language she was beaten by fists and kicks. It is alleged that that the applicant, who is husband of the victim, poured acid on her due to which she sustained injuries. As per injury report, the injuries are simple in nature. The FIR has been lodged after delay of two days. It has been argued that since the victim wanted to live separately from other family members of applicant, she used to build pressure upon the applicant for the same, due to which the relations between the two became strained. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued at bar that earlier also on a complaint the parties had appeared before the Panchyat for settlement of dispute. Father-in-law and brother-in- law have already been granted bail. Learned counsel has also pressed this bail application on the ground of long detention as the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2018. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Anand Sri./-