Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet Second Bail vs State Of U.P. on 2 November, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9539 of 2021 Applicant :- Ranjeet Second Bail Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suhail Kashif,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. This is the second bail application. First bail application got rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.8.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5647 of 2019.
3. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.298 of 2018, under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur.
4. Accused-applicant is the husband of the accused-applicant of the deceased, Vandana Devi. Marriage between the accused-applicant and the deceased took place on 23.3.2018 and the deceased died on 21.8.2018.
5. Post-mortem report would suggest the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-
"1. Abrasion 12.0 x 2.0 cm present on front of neck above thyroid contusion 5.0 cm below right ear 1.0 cm below the left..
2. Contusion 2.0 x 2.0 cm front on forehead 3.0 cm above the root of nose.?
6. Cause of death was due to ante-mortem partial hanging. Accused-applicant has been in jail since 11.10.2018.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that all the witnesses of fact have been examined. Even the doctor who conducted the autopsy, has been examined.
8. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but not disputed the aforesaid facts.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, long incarceration of the accused-applicant and also taking into consideration the fact that all the witnesses of fact had already been examined, the accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
10. Let applicant Ranjeet be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with 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 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 :- 2.11.2022 Rao/-