Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41775 of 2018 Applicant :- Sushil Singhal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar,Chetan Chatterjee Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Chetan Chaterjee, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Prashant Mishra, Advocate along with Rishabh Agarwal, Advocate, who have put in appearance on behalf of the complainant by filing their Parcha in Court today, which is taken on record.
Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Sushil Singhal seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.
231 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shamli, District Shamli.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Amar Singhal was solemnized with Megha on 2nd March, 2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, two daughters are said to be born. The first daughter is said to be aged about 3 years as on date, whereas the second daughter was born in the month of March, 2018. However, after the expiry of a period of four years from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 26th March, 2018, in which, the daughter-in-law of the applicant sustained injuries. It is the case of the applicant that immediately after the said incident, the victim was taken to Bohra Speciality Hospital, Shamli, where she was given first aid and was referred to the another hospital. Accordingly, the victim was rushed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, where she was admitted on 26 March, 2018 at 17.15 hours. Ultimately, the victim died at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi on 26th March, 2018. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 26th March, 2018 at the aforesaid hospital. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 26th March, 2018 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and the cause of the death of the deceased was said to be haemorrhage cause by blunt force impact. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased further found four ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, details of which are mentioned at page 54 of the paper book. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 26th March, 2018 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0231 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shamli, District Shamli. In the first information report, two persons, namely, Amar Singhal the husband and Pooja the Nanad of the deceased were nominated as the named accused, while two persons i.e. father-in-law (the applicant herein) and the mother-in-law of the deceased were nominated as unnamed accused. 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 against the mother-in-law and the Nanad of the deceased. However, the investigation in respect of other two accused, namely, the husband and father-in-law i.e. the applicant herein is still going on.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mother- in-law and the Nanad of the deceased have been enlarged on bail by the court below. He further submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is an old man. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. He is in jail since 18th June, 2018. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by jumping from height. Inviting the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that deceased has died on account of having fallen from the second floor of the house. The four external injuries which were found on the body of the deceased have been caused on account of the aforesaid fall and the same were not inflicted upon the deceased by the applicant. It is also urged that the mother- in-law and the Nanand of the deceased, who are charge- sheeted accused have already been enlarged on bail by the court below. Upto this stage, no such material has been collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant has abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. 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 and the learned counsel for the complainant have jointly opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. They have invited the attention of the Court to the various documents to point out the contradictory stand taken by the applicant regarding the manner in which the injuries were sustained by the deceased. However, the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A. as well as 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 Sushil Singhal 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/-