Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48287 of 2018 Applicant :- Ved Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Suresh Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the. I have also heard Mr. Namit Srivastava, Advocate and Mr. R. B. Pandey, who have filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant in Court today, respectively which are taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the description of the applicant in the memo of present bail application.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Ved Prakash Singh for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.654 of 2018, under Sections 147, 149, 306/34 and 504 IPC, Police Station Lanka, District- Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.
This case unfolds a very unique story. The vicissitudes of married life are explicit from the present case. It transpires from the record that an incident occurred on 04.07.2018, in which Shivangi Dubey (an unmarried young girl) died. The nature of the death of the young girl is the bone of contention between the parties which according to the prosecution was a deliberate act of assault whereas according to the investigating agency the same is an act of suicide. Facts of the case as unfolded and as explicit from the record reveal that the applicant, who is a married young man, was having illicit relationship with Shivangi Dubey. In fascination of their love for each other, they went to a hotel where they were caught red handed by the present applicant who is the father of the wife of the applicant. At this Juncture, the young lady Shivangi Dubey jumped from the first floor of the hotel room and she died. However, this statement comes from the CCTV footage of the entire occurrence, which is part of the case diary. The FIR in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 04.07.2018 by Vinod Kumar Dubey the father of the deceased which was registered as Case Crime No.0654 of 2018 under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi. In the aforesaid FIR, five persons namely Ved Prakash Singh named as Ved Singh (the present applicant) in the FIR.
Apart from him, the father of the applicant, wife of the applicant, mother- in-law of the applicant and the sister-in-law of applicant were nominated as the named accused. It may be noted here that there is no relationship between the applicant and the deceased Shivangi Dubey. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 05.07.2018 on the information given by the father of the deceased. In the opinion of Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be homicidal. The Post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 05.07.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased is ante mortem injuries. The Doctor further detailed the ante mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased which are mentioned herein below:-
"1. Stitched wound 2 cm x 2 cm on Rt side of mid availing liver 3 cm below axilla.
2. Stitched wound 3 cm x 2 cm within a left side of mid axially line 5 cm below axilla.
3. Graz abrasion 2 cm x 3 cm at tip of nose.
4. Contused use swelling 6 cm x 4.6 cm all around 14 cm above left knee joint. Fracture of left femur.
5. Graze abrasion 12cm x 18 cm on Base is seen of left side over hip region & waist. 6. On opening cut & contusion fracture of steruel is seen both side 2nd rib E 500 ml fluid present in pleural cavity.
7. Fracture of clavicle seen in mid line."
The police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number has submitted a charge sheet only against the present applicant under sections 147, 149, 306/34 and 504 IPC Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi. The investigation in respect of the other named accused is still said to be continuing. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge sheet, congnizance has been taken by the Court concerned on 03.10.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. He is in jail since 06.07.2018 The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next submitted that the FIR was initially lodged under Sections 302 and 34 IPC but subsequently the case was converted under Section 306 IPC. The remand of the applicant was taken under Section 306 IPC and the bail application of the applicant has also been rejected under Section 306 IPC. It is next submitted that the proof of the charge under Section 306 IPC is subject to trial evidence. Uupto this stage there is no such evidence on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant has aided, conspired or instigated in the commission of crime. In short the submission is that there is no abetment on the part of the present applicant in terms of Section 306 IPC. It is thus urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. They have relied heavily on CCTV coverage of the entire occurrence and on the basis thereof it is submitted that the present applicant was present at the time and place of occurrence. However, they could 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Ved Prakash 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 :- 18.12.2018 YK