HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 14
Case :- BAIL No. – 3014 of 2018
Applicant :- Suraj @ Saroj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Basant Lal Yadav,Dileep Kumar Yadav,Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Nisha Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
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.126 of 2017, under Sections 498A/Section304B/Section302 IPC Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao.
As per version of F.I.R. marriage of the deceased had taken place with the applicant about one year back. It is alleged that for demand of additional dowry, she was constantly tortured. On 31.01.2017 at about 5.30 hours she was burn to death. She was taken to District Hospital where she died. Accused persons had fled away. This F.I.R. was lodged on 01.02.2017, at about 15.30 hours. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that infact the deceased and applicant had performed love marriage, so there is no question of demand of any dowry. It is also stated that it was an accidental burn case. Immediately she was taken to hospital by the applicant himself but she could not be saved. It is further stated that during the course of trial the statement of doctor who conducted post mortem was recorded but the doctor has stated that in the post mortem report it is not where mentioned as to how the deceased caught fire. It is stated that at the time of post mortem no traces of any inflammable material was found on the body of the deceased. Applicant is in jail since 02.04.2017.
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 (Suraj alias Saroj) 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 :- 27.8.2019