Allahabad High Court
Ram Bachan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96746
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4819 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Bachan And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Karimuddinpur, District Ghazipur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant no.1 is the father-in-law aged about 70 years and also disabled up to 70%, the applicant no.2 is brother-in-law (jeth) and the applicant no.3 is the sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased. Applicant nos.2 and 3 are living separately. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 04.04.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 22.06.2023 i.e. about three months of the alleged incident for which no explanation has been mentioned. The marriage of son of applicant no.1 with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2011 and from their wedlock, they have been blessed with two children, who are presently living with the applicants. Due to matrimonial differences, the deceased herself has committed suicide by hanging. He further submits that the applicants have informed the said incident to the informant and his other family members. At the time of inquest, the applicant no.1 was also present. As per postmortem report, no injury found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death has been mentioned as ante mortem hanging but the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicants and the court below has taken cognizance. Being aggrieved, the applicants have challenged the same by filing Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.4668 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.04.2024, thereafter, the court below has issued NBW against the applicants vide order dated 12.04.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that from perusal of FIR as well as statements of informant, it cannot be inferred that applicants in any manner had ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellants had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing. Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits submits that applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 39 of the affidavit. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicants and in case, the applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants.
7. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants-Ram Bachan, Ravindra and Priyanka Devi @ Gudiya, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(ii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iii) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicants.
(v) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vi) The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
9. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
Ajeet
