HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 14
Case :- BAIL No. – 6878 of 2018
Applicant :- Shitala Prasad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P
Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Pandey,Shiv Ganesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
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.69/2017, under Sections 498A/ Section304B I.P.C. Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station – Gosaiganj, District – Sultanpur.
As per version of the F.I.R., the marriage of the applicant had taken place with the deceased in the year 2012. After marriage, a motorcycle and Rs.1,000/- cash was demanded as an additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, she was constantly tortured. On 18.04.2017, it was informed that she was killed by hanging in a nearby tree, then this F.I.R was lodged. The sole ground for argument is that at the time of incident, the applicant was serving at Ahmedabad. This fact was clearly stated in Paras 9 and 10 of the bail application, regarding which learned A.G.A. was granted certain time to verity this fact as to whether applicant was in Ahmedabad at the time of incident or not. In para 12 of the counter affidavit filed today, it is stated that at the time of incident the applicant was at Ahmedabad, but he constantly tortured the deceased over mobile phone. As per postmortem report, the death was caused due to asphyxia due to anti mortom strangulation.
It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that since the applicant was at Ahmadabad at the relevant time, so he may be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by 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 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 (Shitala Prasad) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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 :- 22.7.2019