Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10518 of 2019 Applicant :- Santosh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Santosh Yadav in Case Crime No. 318 of 2017 (S.T. No. 242 of 2018), under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Barhalganj, District- Gorakhpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and is wholly innocent. His marriage with the deceased took place on 18.5.2014 and from the wedlock a baby girl was also born who was about one and half year at the date of incident. It is further submitted that, in fact, the deceased died on account of cardiac arrest on 21.8.2017 and its information was given to the first informant on that very day which is admitted in the first information report itself by the first informant that he was given an information on 21.8.2017 that the condition of his daughter is serious and when he went to her Sasural, he found her dead. Learned counsel has argued that, in fact, illegal demand was made by the first informant that he may be paid Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance of his infant grand-daughter and in this behalf in the presence of several villagers the amount of Rs.50,000/- was given to the first informant and cremation took place on 22.7.2017. However, the demands of first informant remained unquenched and when the applicant and other family members did not succumb to his demands as they were not financially well of, F.I.R. was lodged on 24.8.2017 at 5 P.M. In the F.I.R., the first informant has stated that he was forced to sign on a blank paper, however, he has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Rs.50,000/- was paid to him by the applicant's father. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 24.3.2018, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and he had forced the first informant to sign some paper and disposed of the dead body of the deceased without post-mortem being conducted. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant- Santosh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Vikas