HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 16
Case :- BAIL No. – 9280 of 2019
Applicant :- Sandeep Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey,Neeraj Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge on bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2019, under Sections 498A, Section304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Paraspur, DistrictGonda.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant (husband) was not named in the FIR. The FIR was filed alleging that the father of the applicant as well as his sister-in-law Seema Singh used to demand dowry. In the statement recorded under Sectionsection 161 Cr.P.C. it was stated that the name of the applicant was not given in the FIR as the applicant was not in a fit state of mind and further the applicant is taking care of two children born out of the wedlock, who are very small. The applicant is said to be custody since 27.5.2019 and has no criminal antecedents. He also argued that the applicant being father has to take care of his two kids. There is no averment on record that the applicant can tamper with the evidence or will not cooperate with the trial. Considering the said submissions as also the fact that co-accused Jagat Pal Singh and Seema Singh have also been enlarged on bail vide two separate orders, passed by this court, which are taken on record.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.
Let the applicant-Sandeep Singh involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the 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, 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 :- 26.9.2019