Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45218 of 2018 Applicant :- Rishipal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Anuj Bajpai, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Rishipal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S.-Paraur, District- Shahjahanpur during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that an incident occurred on 18.08.2018, in which the deceased is alleged to have been raped by one Dr. Vinay Kumar. Subsequently, another incident occurred on 29.08.2018, in which the deceased- Devika sustained burn injuries as the deceased immolated herself. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 29.08.2018, in which the deceased has nominated three persons, namely, Mukesh Yadav, Pramod Yadav and Vinay Kumar Kishwaha. The first information report in respect of the afoesaid incident, which occurred dated 29.08.2018, was lodged on 30.08.2018 by the husband of the deceased. The said F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 139 of 2018 under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Paraur, District-Shahjahanpur.
In the aforesaid F.I.R. only one person, namely, Dr. Vinay Kumar was nominated as the named accused. The post- mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 31.08.2018, The Doctor, who conducted the autophy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was shock due to ante-mortem injury. According to the learned A.G.A., the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number is still continuing.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report has been lodged under Section 306 I.P.C. In the aforesaid F.I.R., only one person, namely, Dr. Vinay Kumar has been nominated as the named accused. The only material which has come against the applicant during the course of investigation is that the applicant was present at the time of the execution of the agreement dated 29.08.2018. He further submits that the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. The deceased in her dying declaration recorded on 29.08.2018 has nominated Mukesh Yadav, Pramod Yadav and Vinay Kumar Kushwaha for the criminality committed upon her i.e. rape He has further submitted that the applicant has neither aided, conspired or instigated the deceased in committing self immolation. It is thus urged that on the aforesaid factual premise the bail application of the applicant is liable to be allowed and the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the co- accused, namely, Ram Ladaite has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25th October, 2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40576 of 2018. The case of the present applicant is on better footing to that of the co-accused Ram Ladaite. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant- Rishipal 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.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Sushil/-