Allahabad High Court
Raj Kishore vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- BAIL No. - 6233 of 2020
Applicant :- Raj Kishore
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Madhulika Yadav,Nisha Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mrs. Madhulika Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant, is not even the beneficiary of motorcycle allegedly demanded; that neither is there a dying declaration against the applicant nor there is any eye witness account of the incident; that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is strangulation; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant; that the applicant has no concern with the incident at all and that he has been implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that he happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased. It has been informed that Munendra, the husband of the deceased, is already in jail.
3. A perusal of the first information report as well as the statement recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveal that no role has been ascribed to the applicant. The counsel contends that the applicant has no criminal history and that he is languishing in jail since 13.05.2020. It is contended that the there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from judicial custody or influencing the witnesses.
4. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the applicant is liable to be released on bail.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the facts as argued by the counsel for the applicant.
6. 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 tampering 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.
7. Let the applicant, Raj Kishore, involved in Case Crime No. 293 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Kheri be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond 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 she would 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 her counsel. In case of her 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 her presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC 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 her 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 CrPC. 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
RKM.
