Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Vinod Sharma vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|23 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31955 of 2018 Applicant :- Vinod Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Sri Dharam Veer Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 1002 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, P.S. Vijay Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. The FIR was registered father of the deceased against four named accused persons including the present applicant with the allegation of additional demand of dowry. It is further submitted that general allegation has been levelled against the entire family members. As per the FIR version, the informant got information that the deceased was suffering from stomach ache but there is no allegation of any demand of dowry in the FIR. However, after registering the FIR, the allegation levelled by the informant that there was a demand of apache motorcycle. Though she died within seven months of her marriage. As per the postmortem report, there is no mark of injury over her person except the ligature mark. It is further submitted that the applicant resides separately and he cannot be beneficiary of the additional demand of dowry. The husband is languishing in jail. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2018.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued 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 fit case for bail.
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 :- 23.8.2018 Nisha
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Vinod Sharma vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
23 August, 2018
Judges
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
Advocates
  • Pankaj Kumar Tyagi