Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38317 of 2017 Applicant :- Shyam Prakash @ Bablu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2016 u/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bewar, District- Mainpuri.
This is the Second Bail Application and the First Bail Application no. 17801 of 2017 was rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.05.2017.
Contention is that the subsequent rejection of the first bail application is that the father of the girl has been examined as PW-1 and the mother of the girl examined as PW-2. The complainant has stated deliberately the false date of the solemnization of the marriage of deceased with the applicant as 20.05.2010 to pull the applicant in the period of 7 years while the marriage was performed on 23.05.2009. It has been further contended that there was some dispute between husband and wife. As a result, the wife has committed suicide by hanging.
Further contention is that applicant is in jail since 29.06.2016 with no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Data Ram vs. State of UP and others, 2018(3) SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Shyam Prakash @ Bablu involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702,, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 SKG