Allahabad High Court
Girija Shanker Tewari 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. - 1137 of 2015
Applicant :- Girija Shanker Tewari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Mishra,Amit Kumar Upadhyay
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 applicant, 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 applicant that the applicant is the brother-in-law (Jeth) 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 applicant has no other criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 15.4.2014.
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 applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Girija Shanker Tiwari 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 his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant 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 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.
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
