Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45034 of 2018 Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav,Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Sumit Kumar, seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 238 of 2018 (State Vs. Sumit Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 665 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Tirwa, District Kannauj during the pendency of the trial which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Court, Kannauj.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is the Devar; that there are general allegations against the entire family comprising six of the in-laws with no specific role being assigned to the Devar; that the deceased committed suicide dousing herself in kerosene on account of a quarrel with her husband as she was a short tempered lady and it was a case of an unabetted suicide; that the husband Umesh Kumar tried to save her and rushed to Hallet Hospital, Kanpur Nagar as asserted in paragraph 12 of the affidavit; that there is no evidence of dowry or cruelty in connection with demand for dowry preceding the occurrence so as to attract the provisions of Section 304-B I.P.C.; and, that the applicant being a young man of 28 years is entitled to bail. It is then submitted that co- accused Rajendra Singh who is father-in-law of the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2018. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the co-accused Ranjendra Singh. As such, the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has taken the Court through the contents of the dying declaration where the deceased has said that all the family members were involved in setting her afire including the applicant; and, that looking to the contents of the dying declaration the applicant who has also been named by the deceased is not entitled to bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage has come up with the submission that the dying declaration casts general blame on the entire family and the applicant being an old man of 73 years cannot be expected to have actively participated in a violent crime of the present nature.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing in the case, the general terms in which the dying declaration has been made, in particular, the age of the applicant which is said to be 73 years but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. The other accused including the mother-in-law would not be entitled to seek parity with the applicant.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Sumit Kumar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on 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.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing 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 complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, benefit of this order will not be available to other accused who are named in the dying declaration.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Arshad