Allahabad High Court
Imran vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18862 of 2019
Applicant :- Imran
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Shanker Malviya,Sameer Khan,Zafar Abbas
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Sameer Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in connection with Crime No.972 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.
As per prosecution case, on 2.10.2018, FIR was lodged by complainant Rubina, alleging in it that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 20.1.2018 and soon thereafter, she was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry. She has alleged that family members of the applicant used to beat her and the applicant used to support them.
Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his application for bail, submits that:
(i) unfortunately, the complainant could not adjust in the family of the applicant and a total false case has been lodged;
(ii) present is a glaring example of misuse of Section 498-A of IPC;
(iii) even as on date, if the complainant wants to live peacefully with the applicant, she can come and live with him;
(iv) further detention of the applicant may aggravate the situation; and
(v) the applicant is in jail since 1.4.2019 and there is no substantial progress in the trial which may take sometime for its final disposal, therefore, he be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have seriously opposed the application for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and his detention period, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Let applicant Imran be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) 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/she 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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her 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 willful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her 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 :- 1.8.2019
RKK
