Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41763 of 2018 Applicant :- Suresh Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Suresh Babu seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1498 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Deepak @ Devendra was solemnized with Kiran @ Kirti on 4th February, 2016 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a girl child was born on 22nd March, 2017. However, after the expiry of a period of two years and six months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 3rd August, 2018, in which, the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. Information of the aforesaid incident was given by the son of the applicant i.e. the husband of the deceased to the concerned Police Station as well as the family of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the information given by the son of the applicant at the Police Station has also been entered in the G.D. vide G.D. Entry No.
27 dated 3rd August, 2018. Subsequent to the information received by the family of the deceased, the inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 3rd August, 2018 on the information given by the husband of the deceased. According to the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was suicidal. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 3rd August, 2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1498 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad. In the first information report, four persons, namely, Deepak the husband, Anita the mother-in-law, Suresh the father-in-law i.e. the applicant herein and Jitu the Devar of the deceased were nominated as the named accused persons. A perusal of the first information report dated 3rd August, 2018 will go to show that the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and also commission of cruelty upon the deceased for the satisfaction of the dowry have been levelled against the named accused persons. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 4th August, 2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. No external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The Police, upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., has submitted a charge-sheet. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is an old man aged about 60 years. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. He is in jail since 6th August, 2018. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. As per the post-mortem report, no external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. As such, it can hardly be said that the applicant has abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. Only vague and general allegations have been made against the applicant and others regarding demand of dowry only to give colour to the first information report. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. However, the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant.
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 Suresh Babu 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.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Sushil/-