HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 14
Case :- BAIL No. – 8328 of 2019
Applicant :- Abdul Raheem Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No.118 of 2019, under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Patranga, District Faizabad.
Applicants are brother-in-law of the deceased. F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156 (3) SectionCr.P.C. It is alleged that marriage of the deceased had taken place with Salim Ahmad on 05.02.2017. After marriage she was constantly tortured for additional dowry and due non fulfillment of the said demand, she was done to death by hanging on 04.10.2018. Application under Section 156 (3) SectionCr.P.C. was moved on 20.04.2019 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.06.2019. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicants that it was an accidental death. Infact after the incident, mother of the applicants had given an information in the police station regarding suicide committed by the deceased which was registered at Rapat No. 32 time 23.10 on 04.10.2018 on the basis of such information inquest report was prepared. The complainant all through was present but immediately no F.I.R. was lodged and after a gap of about six months application under Section 156 (3) SectionCr.P.C. was moved. Applicants being brother-in-law do not appear to be the beneficiary of the demand of dowry.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicants.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicants (Abdul Raheem and Mohd.Aleem) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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 absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.9.2019