Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49289 of 2018 Applicant :- Shakil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar,Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari,Vibhav Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar along with Mr. D.K. Agrahari, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. D.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant, who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing his Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is also taken on record.
From the record it appears that the marriage of Vakil was solemnized with Nageena on 04.05.2014. However, approximately before the expiry of four years from the date of marriage of Vakil, an unfortunate incident occurred on 12.04.2018, in which Vakil attempted to commit suicide. It further appears that immediately after the occurrence took place, the victim Vakil was taken to the Community Health Centre, Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr. However, no medical treatment could be administered to the deceased as he was declared to be brought dead.
The information regarding the aforesaid incident was given by Wahid Khan the real brother of the deceased Nageena at the concerned police station on 12.04.2018 at 11.05 p.m. The same was entered in the general diary of the concerned police station vide G.D. Entry No. 43/ 12.04.2018. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the police reached on the spot but the inquest of the deceased was postponed for the next day i.e. 13.04.2018. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 13.4.2018 and in the opinion of the Panch witnesses the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 13.04.2018 by Sayed Khan, the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0200 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Jahangirabad, District- Bulandshahr.
In the aforesaid first information report five persons, namely Shakeel, Asif, Islam, Saleem, Nageena were nominated as the named accused. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. on 13.04.2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of hanging injury. However, except for the ligature mark, no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter 12 Cr.P.C., has submitted a charge sheet dated 17.11.2018 only against two of the named accused i.e. Shakeel, the present applicant, and Saleem. Rest of the named accused have been excluded.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant Shakil is the brother of Nageena (the wife of the deceased). The applicant is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 26.08.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Learned counsel for the applicant then submitted that proof of the charge under Section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. Upto this stage, there is no such evidence on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the present applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of alleged crime. In short, the submission is that there is no abetment on the part of the present applicant. The co-accused Saleem has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2018. The case of present applicant is identical and similar to that co-accused Saleem. The absence of any external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased clearly speaks of the bonafide of the present applicant. On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the factual and other legal 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 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- Shakil 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 :- 21.12.2018 Ravi Kant