Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48502 of 2018 Applicant :- Yadram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Mohan Chaudhary
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard over the Bail Application moved by Yadram in Case Crime No. 281 of 2018 (S.T. No. 636 of 2018), under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly.
The prosecution version is informant's sister namely, Devvati was married four years back with co-accused Krishapal son of Dodram. Additional dowry of motorcycle and cash of Rs. 50,000/- was being claimed by in-laws. This was complained to informant and other family members. Her in-laws were requested not to do so but they were misbehaving and torturing to her. On 23.05.2018, in the night, some poisonous substance was administered to her, resulting her death, hence this report at 9:31 A.M. on 24.05.2018 was lodged.
In bail application accusation has been denied with this contention that general allegations with no specific attribution of role is against the applicant (cousin Father-in-law). No ante mortem injury or torture was with deceased. She being short tempered took some poisonous substance, resulting in her death; no dying declaration is there. Bail has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail. There is no ante mortem injury in the autopsy examination. Viscera was preserved which reports the presence of Dhatura seeds in it. The general allegation has been attributed; accused-appellant is of no criminal history.
Under facts and circumstances, considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, the applicant is residing separately, coupled with the fact that the co-accused Dodram (father-in-law) and Smt. Phoolwati (mother-in-law) of the deceased have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide separate orders dated 8.1.2019, the case of the present applicant is identical and similar to that of the co-accused Dodram and Smt. Phoolwati.
At this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Yadram be released on bail in Case Crime No. 281 of 2018 (S.T. No. 636 of 2018), under Sections 498A, 304- B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Arshad