Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24806 of 2019 Applicant :- Sandeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Sri Isiyak Khan, Advocate has been filed his vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, which has been taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 313, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to prosecution on 02.05.2014 applicant and complainant marriage was done regarding which certificate of Arya Samaj was also issued. It is further submitted that applicant was doing private job in a university with less salary but the wife of applicant wanted that applicant to leave his job and reside in the campus of IIT Kanpur with her and due to above reason dispute arose between husband and wife. It is further submitted that due to old age marriage the wife of applicant had miscarriage of child and the treatment regarding which was going on in the observation of doctor and whatever medicine was given to the victim is not related to miscarriage of a child. Thereafter again the complainant got pregnant and given birth to baby girl thereafter this FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that case of under section 313, 377 I.P.C. is not made out. 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. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 05.10.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the complainant was in service and in greed of money applicant got marriage with the complainant and she is also got her treatment after the marriage till January 2018. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that her sister-in-law caught her hand and applicant gave her abortion medicine due to which there was miscarriage of pregnancy, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant-Sandeep Sharam 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 :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper or pressurize the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
3. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
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.
Order Date :- 20.6.2019 Swati