Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 30 April, 2015
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- BAIL No. - 3342 of 2014
Applicant :- Anil Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit K. Srivastava,Amit Kumar Upadhyay,Kapil Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Jyotindra Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kapil Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Subhash Singh and Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Alok Mohan Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Though as per the post mortem report, post mortem burn injuries were found on the person of the deceased but the applicants live separately from the deceased and her husband in a separate house. In support of his argument, he has annexed voter I.D. and ration card of the husband of the deceased. He submits that even if the allegation is taken to be true on its value regarding demand of money for the business of brick kiln then too it cannot be covered under Section 304-B I.P.C. as it cannot be assumed as demand of dowry. The husband of the deceased, namely, Ashok is already confined in jail. He submitted that it appears that the dispute was between husband of wife, who live separately from the applicant and they have been falsely implicated only account of said relationship with co-accused Ashok Kumar. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the allegation against them has been exaggerated. The applicants have no other criminal history. The applicants are in jail since 22.11.2013 and 9.1.2014.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there was continuous demand of money by this applicants and co-accused persons for brick kiln from the parents of the deceased and the applicants live in the same house.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicants Anil Kumar and Phool Kali @ Raj Kumari involved in Case Crime No. 117 of 2013 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in view of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.
The case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Ashok Kumar.
Order Date :- 30.4.2015
shiraz
