Allahabad High Court
Munnu Singh (Munnu Singh Chauhan) vs State Of U.P. on 30 September, 2019
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- BAIL No. - 9423 of 2019 Applicant :- Munnu Singh (Munnu Singh Chauhan) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Sinha,Arun Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Sri Pranav Pandey has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant, who is father-in-law of the deceased, is in jail since 6.6.2019 in Case Crime No.606/2019, under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station ? Kotwali Sadar, District ? Unnao.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has apprised the Court that applicant's wife Smt. Geeta Singh has been granted bail by this Court on 26.9.2019 in Bail No.9313 of 2019. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant and his wife have been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as the present applicant resides separately from his son, who is husband of the deceased. Sri Arun Sinha has drawn attention of this Court towards statement of younger sister of the deceased, who has not alleged anything against father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Sri Sinha has further drawn attention of this Court towards diary, which was written by the deceased and the same has been made a part of the case diary, which also does not indicate any cruel treatment against the deceased by the present applicant and his wife. Sri Sinha has also drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of one Sri Shivdas Singh, who happens to be the brother-in-law of father of the deceased. Sri Shivdas Singh, who was the mediator of the marriage, has narrated the story in detail, in which manner the marriage was conducted and in the said statement, Sri Shivdas Singh has stated that it is a case of false implication inasmuch as no demand of dowry has ever been made by the family of the present applicant. In the said statement, Sri Shivdas Singh has categorically stated that father of the deceased is a vegetables vendor whereas the family status of the present applicant is very sound. Sri Sinha has also drawn attention of this Court towards the medical report of the present applicant, which indicates that the present applicant has been suffering from some problem of liver and kidney, therefore, Sri Sinha has drawn attention of this Court towards Section 437, proviso (1) Cr.P.C., which categorically provides that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) may be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a women or is sick or infirm. In the present case, medical reports of the present applicant indicate that he is a sick person.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the bail application. Besides, Sri Pranav Pandey has also opposed the bail application by submitting that the act of cruelty against the deceased was done at the behest of the present applicant, who is head of the family, therefore, the fact that he does not live with his son, whose wife has died, may not help him in any manner whatsoever.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, let applicant- Munnu Singh (Munnu Singh Chauhan) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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 :- 30.9.2019 /RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]