HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?In Chamber

Case :- BAIL No. – 1219 of 2020

Applicant :- Durgesh @ Durgesh Jaiswal

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.

Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant in FIR No.0379 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 326 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kamlapur, Sitapur.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that the daughter of the complainant, Khushboo Jaiswal got married with the accused-applicant eleven months before the date of incident i.e. 09.12.2019. The accused-applicant, his brother and sister used to torture her physically and mentally for dowry demand as they were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage. The accused-applicant and other co-accused were demanding Rs.1,50,000 as dowry. On 09.12.2019, the complainant got information through telephone that his daughter has received burn injuries.

3. As per the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the victim does not want to live in the joint family. She wants to live in Lucknow and for that purpose she has been putting pressure on her husband. The accused-applicant is the eldest son in the family and he has lost his mother and father. Therefore, he is the only person who looks after younger brother and sister. The victim has set herself on fire in the morning on the date of incident and the accused when sensed that the victim has set herself on fire, they rushed to save her. The victim received 25-30% burn injuries on her legs and anterior torso. She was rushed to the hospital by the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant immediately informed his father-in-law.

4. 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.

5. Let applicant, Durgesh @ Durgesh Jaiswal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

(i) The applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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 applicant(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant(s) misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant(s) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant(s) 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 applicant(s) 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.

Order Date :- 9.4.2020

prateek