Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49968 of 2018 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lokendra Pratap Singh,Ashutosh Pratap Singh,Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Affidavit of compliance filed by the learned A.G.A. in Court today, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Ashutosh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Sunil Kumar, the father-in-law of the deceased, for seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 480 of 2018 (State vs. Sandeep and others) during the pending of the above mentioned trial. The aforesaid Sessions Trial has originated from Case Crime No. 121 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nidhauli, District Etah.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Sandeep was solemnized with Geeta on 18.6.2017. Just after the expiry of a period of 10 months and few days from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, the daughter-in-law of the applicant died on 8.5.2018. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on the same day i.e. 18.5.2018 by Munnesh Kumar, the father of the deceased, which was registered Case Crime No. 121 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nidhauli, District Etah. In the aforesaid first information report, three persons, namely, Sandeep, the husband, the mother-in-law and Sunil Kumar, the father-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on the same day. In the opinion of the panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the next day i.e. on 19th May, 2018. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. Accordingly, viscera was preserved. However, the Doctor found three ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased which were described as follows:-
-- Abrasion of size 5 cm x 1 cm on lower part of chin.
-- Abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cam on upper part of Neck.
-- Abrasion of size 5 x 2 cm on right side of Neck.
The Chief Chemical Analyst has submitted the viscera report dated 16.1.2019. However, in the opinion of the Chief Chemical Analyst, no foreign chemical compound was found in the sample of the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, but he is innocent. The death of the deceased is natural inasmuch as there is no fatal ante- mortem injury on the body of the deceased nor any poison has been found in the sample of the body of the deceased, as per the viscera report dated 16.1.2019. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is thus urged that the present applicant is innocent and therefore, liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Sunil Kumar 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 :- 22.1.2019 HSM