Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41787 of 2018 Applicant :- Vedpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rakesh Pati Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Vedpal seeking his enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No. 663A of 2003 (State Versus Vedpal), under Sections 304-B and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Devraniya, District Bareilly arising out of Case Crime No. 470 of 2002, under Sections 304-B and 201 I.P.C. Police Station Devaraniya, District Bareilly during the pendency of the aforesaid sessions trial pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No.3 Bareilly.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the brother of the applicant, namely, Kishan Lal was solemnized with Champa Devi in the year 1998 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a girl child was born on 22nd March, 2017. However, after five years from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 23rd November, 2002, in which, the wife of the brother of the applicant i.e. the bhabhi of the applicant died. However, no information regarding the aforesaid occurrence was given by the applicant or his family members to the family members of the deceased or to the concerned Police Station. Moreover the body of the deceased was also disposed off. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 25th November, 2002 by the father of the deceased, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 470 of 2002, under Sections 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Devaraniya, District Bareilly. In the aforesaid first information report, four persons, namely, Kishan Lal the husband, Vedpal the Devar i.e. the present applicant herein, Badri Prasad the father-in-law and Mohan Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased were nominated as the named accused persons. 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 all the named accused persons. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge- sheet, cognizance was taken and consequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 663 of 2003 (State Versus Kishan Pal & Others) under Sections 304-B and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Devraniya, District Bareilly arising out of Case Crime No.
470 of 2002 came to be registered in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No.3 Bareilly. At this stage, the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No.3 Bareilly. However, the applicant absconded from the proceedings of the aforesaid sessions trial. Consequently, the trial of the present applicant was segregated and came to be registered as Sessions Trial No. 663A of 2003 (State Versus Vedpal), under Sections 304-B and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Devraniya, District Bareilly. The applicant has surrendered before the court below on 17th July, 2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Sessions Trial No. 663 of 2003 (State Versus Kishan Pal & Others) in respect of other three named accused persons have been decided vide judgment and order dated 29th February, 2008 and all the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The trial of the present applicant is still pending before the court below. He further submits that the applicant is the Devar of the deceased. Remaining three accused persons have already been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Referring to the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the same witnesses are not liable to support the prosecution of the present applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the present applicant in jail. Therefore, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. However, the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A. and 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 Vedpal 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/-