Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31174 of 2018 Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.354 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the father-in- law of the deceased. The FIR was lodged by the first informant, brother of the deceased against six accused persons including the applicant. The allegation is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws in connection with the demand of four wheeler as an additional dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, she committed suicide by hanging herself. Before taking this extreme step, she has left a suicide note annexed as annexure- 5 to the bail application in which she has not attributed any role to anybody. After going through the suicide note, it is clear that deceased was quite sensitive lady and she could not tolerate that her father is indebted on account of her marriage and that is why in the last two lines of the suicide note, she requested her husband to return back Rs.50,000/- and other articles to her father so that he may clear off all the dues taken from the outside sources. In the entire FIR, she has not attributed anyone responsible except herself. As per prevailing practice of the society, the applicant was named in the FIR. The next contention is that co-accused Gomti Devi(mother-in-law) has been granted bail by this Court on 09.08.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29988 of 2018, copy of which has been produced for perusal. In this continuation, parity has also been claimed by saying that the case of the applicant stands on the same footing. The applicant is in jail since 23.04.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the relationship of the applicant with the deceased, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that co-accused has been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Umesh Chandra Mishra, involved in case crime no.354 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya be released on bail 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 :- 23.8.2018 Sumit S