Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45431 of 2018 Applicant :- Surendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Srivastava,Bipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Pushkar Srivastava and Bipin Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the complainant.
The learned counsel for the complaint has filed counter affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
Perused the material on record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Surendra for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 183 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Chakiya, District- Chandauli.
From the record it appears that the marriage of Surmila @ Chandrakala was solemnized with Pankaj on 08.05.2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. Unfortunately before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage an incident occurred on 09.08.2018 in which the wife Surmila @ Chandrakala is reported to have died. The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 14.08.2018 not by the husband of the deceased or by any family member of the husband of the deceased but by the father of the deceased. The said F.I.R. came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0183 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Chakiya District- Chandauli.
In the aforesaid F.I.R. as many as eight persons were named as the accused i.e. Pankaj the husband, Ramagya Jaith, Ramnaresh father-in-law, Teeja Devi mother-in-law, Reena Nanad. Apart from the aforesaid three other persons namely Surendra Member Block Development Counsel (the applicant herein), Ramashray and Mahendra were also nominated as the accused persons. According to the F.I.R. version the three unknown members namely Surendra, Ramshray and Mahendra followed the husband of the deceased on two separate motorcycles while the husband was carrying his wife on his motorcycle. The investigation of the aforesaid case crime number is said to be continuing.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not the family member of the deceased, therefore, no offence under Sections 498A, 304B and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, can be said to have been committed by the present applicant. So far as the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated. There is no eye witness account of the occurrence. Two witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but the aforesaid two witnesses have also not nominated the present applicant in the commission of crime. The motive behind this implication has been stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicant the case in hand is a case of circumstantial evidence, which can be proved by trial evidence. The prosecution is under a heavy burden to prove the motive against the applicant behind the occurrence as well as the entire chain of events. On the aforesaid factual premise it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that up to this stage there is no evidence on the record on the basis of which the applicant can be said to have committed the alleged crime. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed any crime. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 15.09.2018. As such they are liable to be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that two co-accused, namely, Mahendra and Ramasrey, who are also not family members of the deceased, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25th October, 2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40612. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid two co-accused. As such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the accused have been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and the offence in question is one in which the dead body of the deceased has been destroyed without any information to the police. The applicant is thus liable for having committed an offence under Section 201 I.P.C. As such no case for bail is made out and the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but 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-Surendra 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. It is clarified that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the family members of the deceased.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Sushil/-