Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6455 of 2017 Appellant :- Sonu Alias Dharmendra Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Lav Srivastava,V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pandey Balkrishna
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 360055 of 2017
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that applicant-appellant has been falsely implicated and has been wrongly convicted for committing dowry death of his wife who died within three years from marriage due to accidental burn injuries, that the appellant never made any demand of dowry from the deceased and never treated her with cruelty for non- fulfilment of demand of dowry; that in the incident in question of accidental burns, 1-1/2 years old daughter of appellant also sustained burn injuries and remain under treatment for a period of about one month; that the appellant did not put the deceased on fire and has not committed her dowry death; that the appellant has no criminal history; that the co-accused Mahesh Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Manju alias Sudha being father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 6361 of 2017 vide order dated 29.01.2018; that the appellant is in custody since 07.11.2012 and was not granted bail during trial; that the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; that the applicant-appellant has been sentenced with maximum rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B and fine under various sections; that the appellant has undergone more than 50% of the sentence as he is in custody since 20.10.2012 i.e. for last five years and eight months; that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that there are material contradictions in prosecution evidence; that the trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in convicting the accused-appellant and he has every hope of success in appeal; that there is no likelihood of appeal to be heard in near future due to huge pendency of appeals before the court; that the applicant-appellant has no criminal history; that the applicant- appellant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will remain present before the Court as and when required and he will cooperate with the hearing of appeal for which their counsel will remain present on the dates of listing.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant-appellant has been rightly convicted for the offences; that there is sufficient evidence of offences on record against the applicant-appellant.
Considering the unlikelihood of early hearing of appeal, complicity of convicts and sentence as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Let the applicant-appellant Sonu alias Dharmendra be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge concerned in S.T. No. 1112 of 2013 (State Vs. Sonu alias Dharmendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 781 of 2012, under sections 304B, 498A I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hapur City, District- Ghaziabad and subject to deposit of entire amount of fine imposed on them and undertaking that applicant-appellant will cooperate with the hearing of the appeal.
As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 S. Thakur