Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28003 of 2018 Applicant :- Sunil Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.1798 of 2017, under Section 498-A, 306 IPC Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghazipur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased wayback in the year 2003 and two sons namely Anshuman and Ayushman were born out of their wedlock. Learned counsel next submitted that the deceased was quarrelsome and cantankerous lady and she along with her brother had made the life virtually hell of the present applicant. The next contention is that on 09.02.2015, a compromise was arrived at between the parties in which it is clearly borne out that Saroj Devi, wife of the applicant started residing separately. This compromise was arrived in the year 2015. Thereafter, number of litigations and cross-litigations were initiated against each other. Lastly, the present case came into existence through an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 30.06.2017 for the incident said to have been taken place on 14.06.2017 against five named accused persons. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. The allegation levelled in the FIR is that the applicant was in suspecting illicit relationship with some other woman. On this account, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. From the FIR, it is not clear as to what is the name of the woman with whom the applicant has an illicit relation. Moreover, the deceased was residing separately since 2015 and her temperament and behaviour has prompted her to consume poison. The viscera was preserved and aluminium phosphide was found in the viscera. There is no evidence of any abetment of committing suicide from the side of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 25.03.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the relationship of the applicant with the deceased and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Sunil Yadav, involved in case crime no.1798 of 2017, under Section 498-A, 306 IPC Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghazipur be released on bail 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 IPC.
(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 IPC.
(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.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Sumit S