Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40936 of 2018 Applicant :- Shivnanadan Alias Sukhnandan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Shivnanadan Alias Sukhnandan seeking his enlargement on bail in Session Trial No. 224 of 2018 (State Vs. Nanlal and others) pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehpur arising out of Case Crime No. 0095 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Bakewar, District- Fatehpur during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Nandlal was solemnized with Nisha on 16.04.2017 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of one year and one month from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 04.06.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 05.06.2018 not on the information given by the applicant or any of his family members but on the information given by the father of the deceased, namely, Dhirendra. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 05.06.2018 by the father of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0095 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C., P.S.-Bakewar, District-Fatehpur.
In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Nandlal (the husband), Shivnandan (the father-in-law) of the deceased and three sisters of Nandlal were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 05.06.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. 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 06.07.2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act,P.S.-Bakewar, District-Fatehpur. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned. Consequently, Session Trial No. 224 of 2018 (State Vs. Nandlal and others) came to be registered in the court of Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father- in-law of the deceased. The applicant is an old man aged about 61 years having no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2018. In the aforesaid F.I.R. lodged by the father of the deceased, no allegation with regard to demand of dowry has been made. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Except for the ligature marks, no other external injury has been found on the body of the deceased. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that thought no allegation with regard to demand of dowry has been made in the F.I.R. but the Police has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 498A as well as Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant and his son. The offence is covered under Section 304B I.P.C. and therefore, presumption is available to the prosecution. The applicant has failed to discharge the burden which is required to be discharged in respect of an offence under Section 304B I.P.C. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and 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-Shivnanadan Alias Sukhnandan 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 :- 27.10.2018 YK