No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40761 of 2018 Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Yogendra Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 362/C/2017 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506, 209 I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police State- Nehtaur, District-Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Kuntesh @ Kavita on 06.05.2011 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of more than four years from the date of marriage of the applicant an unfortunate incident occurred in which the wife of the applicant sustained injuries. It is the case of the applicant that the wife of the applicant was admitted to the hospital namely, M.M.G. Hospital, Ghaziabad, on 22.09.2018 and had under undergone treatment for the injuries suffered by her. Ultimately the wife of the applicant died on 23.09.2015. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23.09.2015 on the information given by the sweeper of the aforesaid hospital. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses the death of the deceased was natural. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 24.09.2015. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased could not ascertain the cause of death of the deceased and the vicsera of the deceased was preserved. The chief analyst chemical submitted the viscera report on 22.06.2018 and opined that the death of the deceased was natural as no foreign compound was found in the body of the deceased. After the expiry of a period of more than two years from the date of death of the deceased directions were issued to register an F.I.R. on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the father of the deceased. The F.I.R. dated 10.08.2017 came to be registered against four persons namely Yogendra Kumar (husband), Parshuram (father- in-law), Sudha (mother-in-law) and Devendra Kumar (Dewar) of the deceased. The same was registered as Case Crime No.
0362/C/2017 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506, 209 I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police State- Nehtaur, District-Bijnor. Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, the police has submitted a charge sheet dated 17.07.2018 whereby the husband Yogendra Kumar, Sudha (mother-in-law), Parshuram (father-in-law) have been charge sheeted. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge sheet cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 19.07.2018. What has happened subsequent to the passing of the cognizance taking order dated 19.07.2018, has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The applicant is innocent. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 21.04.2018. The father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2018. He further submits that the death of the deceased is natural as the deceased was suffering from stone in the kidney as is evident from medical prescription of the deceased photocopies of which are on the record from page 46 to 51 of the paper book. He further invited the attention of the Court to the report dated 22.06.2018 photocopy of which is on the record at page 97 of the paper book. The forensic report submitted by the Forensic Laboratorty, Lucknow, contains a categorical recital that nothing unusual has been found in the body of the deceased leading to the death of the deceased. It is thus submitted that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the accused have been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. It is thus submitted that the bail application of the applicant in liable to be rejected. However, the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material on record and the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Yogendra 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 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.
(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 I.P.C..
(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., 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.
(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 him 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 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 :- 26.10.2018 Rahul.