Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Sadakat vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|19 December, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48492 of 2018 Applicant :- Sadakat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Ziya Uddin, who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing his Vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant- Sadakat seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1045 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
From the record it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely Firasat was solemnized with Iram Jahan on 16.09.2017. However, just after the expiry of a period of one year and one month from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. It is the case of the present applicant that after coming to know of the aforesaid occurrence, the son of the applicant rushed the victim to G.T.B. Hospital, New Delhi on the same day but she was declared to be brought dead. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. 18.08.2018 on the information given by the father of the deceased, namely, Naushad. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged by Naushad, the father of the deceased, on 17.08.2018, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1045 of 2018, under Sections 323, 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Loni Border, District Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid first information report six persons, namely, Firasat (husband), Shadakat (father-in-law), Sayda (mother-in-law), Nazakat (Jeth), Riyasat (Devar) and Guddi (Nanad) were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted a charge-sheet dated 15.11.2018 only against three of the named accused i.e. the husband, mother-in- law and the father-in-law of the deceased i.e. the applicant herein. Rest of the named accused have been excluded.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is old man aged about 60 years. The applicant is in jail since 27.08.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. The absence of any external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased clearly speaks of the bonafide of the present applicant. Simple vague and general allegations have been made in the first information report with regard to the demand of dowry and the commission of cruelty upon the deceased. The allegations have not been specified in quantity and are not pointing at any person of the family of the applicant. As such, it is urged that the present applicant, being the father-in-law of the deceased, is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant 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-Sadakat 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 :- 19.12.2018 Pkb/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sadakat vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
19 December, 2018
Judges
  • Rajeev Misra
Advocates
  • Rakesh Pati Tiwari