Allahabad High Court
Rahul @ Sonu vs State Of U.P. on 22 September, 2016
Bench: Pratyush Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32495 of 2016
Applicant :- Rahul @ Sonu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,V.P.Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Rahul alias Sonu, who is involved in Case Crime No.68 of 2016, under sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, police Station Chadinagar, District Baghpat.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case being the husband of the deceased who died after one year of her marriage due to anti-mortem burns. He further submits that the deceased was taken to the hospital by the family members of the applicant.The father of the applicant has informed the father of the deceased about the incident.The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Magistrate wherein she has solely blamed her sister-in-law. He further submits that at the relevant time the applicant was in Gova. He has nothing to do with the incident. He is service man. He is not likely to abscond.
On behalf of State and complainant the prayer for bail has been opposed. Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for complainant submits that it is a case of dowry death. There is evidence of demand of dowry, torture of the deceased and her unnatural death within seven years of her marriage.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the 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 Rahul alias Sonu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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 her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 his, 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 her bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.9.2016
G.S
