Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41445 of 2018 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Yusuf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.Z.Khan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Gurfan Ali Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. A. Z. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Salman seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.- Gagalhedi, District-Saharanpur during the pendency of the trial.
Perused the record.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant- Salman was solemnized with Nazrin in the year 2017. However, after the expiry of a period of one and a half years from the date of marriage of the the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 22.06.2018, in which the wife of the applicant died. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.06.2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the uncle of the deceased, namely, Usman. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of death of the deceased. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 22.06.2018 by the uncle of the deceased, namely, Usman, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0216 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.- Gagalhedi, District-Saharanpur.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely, Salman-husband (the applicant herein) and Mahraj-mother-in-law of deceased were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.06.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that no definite cause could be assigned regarding the death of the deceased. Therefore, it was directed that the viscera of the deceased be preserved to ascertain the cause of death. The Chief-Chemical Analyst has submitted the viscera report on 24.11.2018 wherein it is submitted that no chemical compound was found in the body of the deceased. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 30.09.2018 only against the husband-Salman, i.e., the present applicant. The mother-in-law of the deceased has been excluded. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet dated 30.09.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and even though, he is a charge-sheeted accused yet, prima-facie, he is innocent. The applicant is in Jail since 22.06.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Inviting the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased has died on account of natural death inasmuch as no external ante-mortem injury was wound on the body of the deceased nor any chemical compound has been found in the body of the deceased, on the basis of which, it can be said that it is a case of poisoning. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA for the State and Mr. A. Z. Khan, learned counsel for the complaint have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since the applicant is the husband of the deceased and also a charge-sheeted accused, therefore, the burden is upon the applicant himself to explain in terms of Section 304B I.P.C. as to how the deceased has died. However, they could not dispute the factual and legal submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. A. Z. Khan, 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-Salman 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 :- 26.11.2018 YK