Allahabad High Court
Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P. on 17 March, 2021
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11753 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Kishore
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.318 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Kampil, District-Farrukhabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The next contention is that general role has been attributed to all his family members including the applicant. From the FIR itself, it has come out that demand of Rs.five lacs were made by husband from his wife for the purpose of establishing business. During the course of investigation, it is also surfaced that husband and wife reside in different portion of the same house and having separate kitchen. It clearly shows that they are distinct domestic entity altogether. No doubt that the deceased has committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and the post mortem report also reveals that there are scratch over her person suggestive of the fact that there was a struggle during her life time. But, there cannot be any denial of the fact that this demand of Rs.five lacs was made exclusively by the husband for expanding his business. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007(57) ACC 544. Therefore, it has been contended that this would not fall within the definition of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2020.
This fact is refuted by learned counsel for the complainant mentioning therein that there was struggle and scratches over the body of the deceased which shows that this is the work of more than one person including the applicant and no leniency should be shown in favour of the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant, Ram Kishore, who is involved in case crime no.318 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Kampil, District-Farrukhabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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 COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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., 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(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 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021
Sumit S
