Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12801 of 2019 Applicant :- Vikrant Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Mayank Yadav,Pardeep Kumar,Ram Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.08 of 2017, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to prosecution version deceased Pooja was married with the applicant on 4.12.2015. It is alleged that on 18.01.2017 in the evening, applicant informed the informant that Pooja has died. It is further alleged that due to non giving motorcycle in dowry, she was harassed. It is further submitted that at the time of cooking food, she caught fire and due to fire injury, she died and information was given to the family members of the deceased by the applicant. Family members of the deceased were also present at the time of inquest. There is general allegation and all the family members have been implicated in the present case. There is no dying declaration of the present case. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and is languishing in jail since 19.01.2017.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that testimony of the informant Manish Kumar and PW-2 Mahendra Kumar father of the deceased have been recorded by the trial Court who has turned hostile but within seven years of marriage of deceased, unnatural death has been caused in the house of the applicant, which has not been explained by the applicant being husband, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material on record, testimony of the informant as as well as father of the deceased, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Vikrant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 SFH