Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49179 of 2018 Applicant :- Vijendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, 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 Vijendra Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Allahganj, District Shahjahanpur during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Neeru was solemnised with Mohini on 7th June, 2017 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. Just after expiry of a period of one year and one week from the date of marriage of the brother of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 15th June, 2018 in which the daughter-in- law of the applicant died, as she committed suicide by hanging herself. A first information report, in respect of the aforesaid incident, was lodged on 15th June, 2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0237 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Allahganj, District Shahjahanpur. In the aforesaid first information report, four person, namely, Vijendra Singh the father-in-law, Neeru the husband, Smt. Guddi Devi the mother-in-law i.e. the applicant herein and Shyamu the Devar were nominated as the named accused. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on 15th June, 2018. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 16th June, 2017. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is Asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Investigation of the aforesaid case crime number is said to be still continuing.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father -in-law of the deceased. He is aged about 55 years. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 3rd August, 2018. Only vague and general allegations have been made against the applicant in the first information report as well as in the statement of the complainant recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. Except for the ligature mark no other external or internal injuries were found on the body of the deceased. It is then submitted that the mother-in-law and dewar of the deceased have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2018. The case of the present applicant is identical and similar to that of the co-accused Guddi @ Radhika and Shyam @ Shyamu. It is thus urged that present applicant is also 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. Apart from raising other issues, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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 Vijendra 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/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 :- 20.12.2018 Arshad