Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28571 of 2021 Applicant :- Vimlesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vishal Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure which has been filed by the applicant Vimlesh Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 54 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Indergarh, District Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the First Information Report has been registered after a delay of four days without any plausible explanation. The incident in question has taken place on 20.03.2019 for which the First Information Report was registered on 24.03.2019. It is argued that in the First Information Report although there is a mention of demand of extra dowry by the accused persons but there is no specification whatsoever of the dowry. It is further argued that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 19.05.2014 which is about five years back. There are two children from the wedlock from the applicant and the deceased. It is further argued that couple was leading a happy married life. It is further argued that the doctor conducting the postmortem examination and had preserved the viscera and viscera report shows that the same contains aluminum phosphoide poison. Learned counsel has placed before the Court annexure 5 to the affidavit being the statement of Hakim Singh the first informant recorded before the trial court as PW-1 and has placed the cross examination to the same wherein the said witness has stated that there was no demand of dowry and his daughter was suffering from headache and even had tried to commit suicide twice earlier, and on the day of the incident, she had called him on telephone and stated that she was having pain in the head and she would commit suicide. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant is false. It is argued that looking to the statement of PW-1 the first informant and the father of the deceased, the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit and is in jail since 27.03.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that the death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house which is unnatural. Although, learned counsel for the State could not dispute the statement of PW-1 who is the father of the deceased and the first informant of the case.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the first informant who is the father of the deceased, in the trial in his cross examination has stated that there was no demand of dowry either from the deceased or her family members and on the day of the incident she told him that she was having pain in the head and would commit suicide.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant Vimlesh Kumar, 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)