HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 14
Case :- BAIL No. – 6839 of 2019
Applicant :- Randheer Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiva Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.1255 of 2018, under Sections 498A, Section304B I.P.C. and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
As per version of F.I.R. marriage of the deceased had taken place with the applicant about three years back. It is alleged that there was a demand of Rs.1.00 Lac cash and one gold chain and due to non fulfillment of the said demand, the victim was tortured and was given threats of life and on 22.10.2018 she was done to death by strangulation. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged with delay of two days on 24.10.2018. It is further submitted that before lodging of the F.I.R. complainant had given an information to the police station concerned on 22.10.2018 at 16.14 hours to the effect that deceased died because of the hanging. In the said information no allegation of demand of dowry has been made. It is also submitted that as per post mortem report except ligature mark no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. Ligature mark was interrupted at the right side of the neck just behind the right ear. It appears that due to some family dispute deceased committed suicide.
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-applicant.
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 applicant (Randheer Kumar) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant 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 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.
Order Date :- 17.7.2019