Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47759 of 2017 Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2016, under section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Chhaprauli, District Baghpat. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 25.05.2017.
The contention of the second bail application is that applicant, who is husband, is in jail since 17.06.2016 with no previous criminal history. It is further contented that in the post mortem report, the cause of death is hanging with no external injury. The further contention is that there are as many 17 witness and till date only one witness has been examined and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded as an early date. Further contention is that the wife has committed suicide on account of the fact that this was her second marriage with the applicant and the factum of the first marriage was concealed by the family members of the deceased to the second husband. Subsequently the husband/ applicant came to know about this fact that there were some matrimonial cases are going on between the deceased and her first husband and the father of the deceased was pursuing those litigation, on account of which the wife of the applicant was in depression. It has been further submitted that the cause of death is hanging with no external injury, on the other hand it is further contention that even the bangles were found to be intact, which shows any absence of scuffle.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018(3) SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will no in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Sachin involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Abhishek/V.S. Singh