HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 21292 of 2019
Applicant :- Param Hans Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Sinha learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in connection with Crime No. 75 of 2018, under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C and Section 3/Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli.
As per prosecution case, the marriage of Ram Sundar, son of the applicant, was solemnized with the deceased Madhuri sometime in the year 2015 but the deceased died unnatural death on 24.04.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is father-in-law aged about 60 years and he does not keep good health in jail. General allegations have been levelled against the applicant, who was residing separately from the couple. It has been argued that three important witnesses of the prosecution have been examined before the trial court and they have not deposed anything against the applicant.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in particular the fact that the applicant is father-in-law, does not keep good health and is in jail since 25.04.2018, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Param Hans Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) 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 he/she 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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 Sectionsection 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 2.8.2019