Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48519 of 2018 Applicant :- Surajpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Jai Prakash Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Surajpal, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2018 under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Sahpau, District Hathras during the pendency of the trial.
According to the F.I.R., it is urged that the sister of the first informant accompanied Sheelendra Kumar out of her free will. It was urged that the sister of the first informant solemnized marriage with Sheelendra Kumar in accordance with rites of Arya Samaj but Sheelendra Kumar was already married. However, the deceased Pooja never disclosed the fact that her husband Sheelendra Kumar was already married. On 21.7.2018 Pooja left her parental home and reached her marital home, where some scuffle took place. Thereafter Pooja jumped infront of a moving train. Accordingly, an F.I.R. dated 24.7.2018 was lodged by Shaloo Nigam sister of the deceased, wherein, five persons namely, Sheelendra Kumar, wife of Sheelendra Kumar, mother-in-law, Surajpal (fatehr-in-law), Devar of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the post mortem report of the deceased clearly suggests that the deceased had died as a result of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury. The ante- mortem injuries have been detailed in the post mortem report by the Doctor as follows:-
"(i) Skull Amputated and crushed (Brain matter missing)
(ii) Left upper limb Amputated and crushed.
(iii) Rt. Upper limb Amputated 7 cm below from shoulder joint and amputated part is crushed.
(iv) Abdomen crushed (Internal organs crushed)
(v) Both lower limbs amputated and crushed."
He thus submits that the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased can be caused by moving train. The allegations made in the F.I.R. can be said to be the cause behind the occurrence, but will certainly not amount to abetment in terms of section 107 IPC read with Section 306 IPC. He has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2018 (102) ALLCC 156 in support of his submissions.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Surajpal, 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/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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/her 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 :- 19.12.2018 Arshad