Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49219 of 2018 Applicant :- Tejbali Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kant Tiwari,Indresh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Tejbali Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 623/2018 (State Vs. Rohit Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 314 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Koraon, District Allahabad during the pendency of the trial.
From the record it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Rohit Singh was solemnized with Neha Singh on 11.5.2018. However, just after the expiry of a period of two months from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant an unfortunate incident occurred on 1.8.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. The FIR in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 1.8.2018 by the father of the deceased namely Raj Bahadur Singh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0314 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Koraon, District Allahabad.
In the aforesaid FIR, six persons namely, Rohit Singh (husband), Tejbali Singh (father-in-law), mother-in-law, Nanad, Devar and Jeth of the deceased were nominated as the accused. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 2.8.2018 not on the information given by the present applicant or any of her family members but on the information give by the first informant. In the opinion of the panch witnesses no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of the death of the deceased. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 2.8.2018. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia, as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Except for the ligature mark no other external ante-mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime no. in terms of Chapter 12 Cr.P.C. has submitted the charge sheet dated 7.10.2018 against the husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law (i.e the applicant herein) of the deceased. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father -in-law of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 03.8.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry. The applicant is residing separately from the family of the deceased. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon the site plan. Photo copy of which is on the record at page 23 of the paper book. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. There is no such evidence up to this stage, on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant has abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused Rajkumari Singh, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 27.11.2018. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the co-accused. On the aforesaid factual premise it is urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, learned A.G.A. would not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence 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-Tejbali Singh 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.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 HSM