Allahabad High Court
Chhotilla @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. on 9 August, 2016
Bench: Pratyush Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25181 of 2016
Applicant :- Chhotilla @ Pappu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tufail Hasan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant,Chhotilla alias Pappu, who is involved in Case Crime No.1024 of 2015, under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Narkhi, District- Firozabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is dewar of the deceased who died after four years of her marriage due to ante mortem burns. He further submits that the deceased sustained burn injury on 16.11.2015. She was immediately brought to hospital by her husband. She was taken for advance treatment to a Private Nursing Home at Agra where she died on 20.11.2016. At the time of hospitalization in the private clinic the husband and father of the deceased were present which shows that the applicant and his family members had taken all possible steps to save the life of the deceased. He further submits that there are general allegation about the demand of dowry. Even the deceased had named her father-in-law and mother-in-law for putting her to fire. He further submits that the applicant is a family man. He has no previous history. He is not likely to be abscond.
On behalf of State the bail has been opposed and it has been submitted that the deceased in her dying declaration has named her Sasuraljan for putting her fire.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant, Chhotilla alias Pappu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of 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, if 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 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.8.2016
G.S
