Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33137 of 2021 Applicant :- Vishal Bhartiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Nitesh Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhaiya Lal Yadav
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri N. B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Bihari, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA for the State.
Submission is that the FIR was registered by Smt. Bindu Devi Saroj on 10.06.2021 being Case Crime No. 361 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Handiya District Prayagraj.
The applicant is a brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased and facing incarceration since 13.06.2021.
Contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that after levelling usual false allegation upon all the family members of Vikas Saroj, the husband a blurred FIR has been registered without specifying as to what additional amount of dowry was demanded from her in-laws. It is submitted that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. Except one ligature mark, there is no injury on her person. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail in connection with dowry demand. It is pointed out that there is no mention of specific amount demanded as additional dowry in the FIR, but in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the brother of the deceased, the prosecution has tried to fill up the blanks by inserting a figure of Rs. two lac as an additional amount of dowry. It is further pointed out that the applicant is unmarried, who is pursuing his studies at Delhi. His name has also been indicated in the array of the accused along with other family members. It is further pointed that it is the applicant, who has broken the door from outside and has seen the dead body of his sister-in-law (bhabhi) hanging. There is no suicide note attributing the role of the applicant, and more particularly, there is false allegation made in the FIR regarding the additional dowry demand.
Per contra, Sri Raj Bihari, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by mentioning that the deceased was a married woman; married about five years back and she was a mother of one baby. She has committed suicide at the residence of the husband, and, therefore, presumption of law would lie against the husband and all the family members.
Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out at least a case for bail.
Let the applicant, Vishal Bhartiya, who is involved in Case Crime No. 361 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Handiya District Prayagraj be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT 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 HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE 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 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 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. 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 :- 26.10.2021 Deepak