Heard Sri Arunendra Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
Amrawati was married to Santosh Kumar Dharkar (applicant) on 27.01.2012. Unfortunately, she committed suicide on 27.04.2018 in the house of her in-laws.
Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The counsel contends that the FIR has been filed with considerable delay of 5 months and 10 days without any plausible explanation. It is contended that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and he is 40% disabled. The counsel contends that there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant for demand of dowry and the consequent harassment or torture of the deceased. He has further contended that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and except the ligature mark, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. The counsel contends that at the time of inquest, Pappu Chetwal, cousin of the deceased, was present, but no allegation was levelled against the applicant. It has been pointed out that co-accused Gulab Kali (mother-in-law), who has been ascribed a similar role, has been granted bail by the court below. The counsel contends that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 01.02.2019. It is contended that the charge sheet in the matter has already been submitted and there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. The counsel further contends that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the facts as argued by the counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant, Santosh Kumar Dharkar, involved in Case Crime No. 394 of 2018, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Salon, District Raebareli be released on bail on his 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 would not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. 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 :- 12.1.2021 Anurag