Allahabad High Court
Mamchand vs State Of U.P. on 13 November, 2019
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29502 of 2019 Applicant :- Mamchand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Anand Ji Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
This is second bail application filed by applicant. First bail application filed by applicant has been rejected, vide order dated 4.12.2018. Court has rejected the first bail application primarily on the submission urged by learned A.G.A. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein below:-
"Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.K.Singh Raghav, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Satyam Narayan, the learned counsel for the complainant.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Mam Chand for seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0380 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Viash @ Vikki was solemnized with Annu on 17th June, 2014 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of four years from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 13th June, 2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant, namely, Annu died in mysterious circumstances. Without disclosing the death of the daughter-in-law of the applicant at the Police Station as required under Section 174 Cr.P.C. or the family of the deceased and without awaiting the arrival of the family members of the deceased, the dead body of the deceased was disposed of in a very hurried manner. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 13th June, 2018 by the father of the deceased, namely, Ram Niwas, which was registered as Case Crime No.0380 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut. In the aforesaid first information report, seven persons, namely, Vikash @ Vikki-husband, Mam Chand-father-in-law, Vimlesh-mother-in-law, Punam-Nanad, Guddan-Nanad of the deceased and Pramod and Rajeev @ Rajveer, relatives of the husband of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. Since the body of the deceased had already been disposed of, neither the inquest of the deceased nor the post-mortem of the body of the deceased could be conducted. The Police on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation undertaken by it in terms of Chapter XII submitted first charge-sheet dated 12th September, 2018 against the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 12th September, 2018, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 15th September, 2018. In respect of the other five named accused, the investigation is said to be pending.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased but he is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 27th September, 2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. Referring to the bail rejection order passed by the court below, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aged about 75 years and also a disabled person as noted in the bail rejection order. On the aforesaid factual premise, he submits that the applicant could not have even abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. It is, thus, urged that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the present application for bail. They submit that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and the entire incident has occurred in his house and within seven years of marriage of the son of the applicant. As such presumption under Sections 106 and 113-B I.P.C. is standing against the applicant. Upto this stage, the applicant has not been able to discharge the burden, which is required to be discharged in respect of presumption of the aforesaid Sections. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is aged about 75 years and is a disabled person, learned Counsel for the complainant submits that in support of the aforesaid, no documentary evidence has been submitted before the court below nor the same has been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the present bail application nor any document has been brought on record evidencing the same. It is, thus, vehementally urged that the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the evidence brought on record as well as considering the complicity of the accused, but without commenting on the merits of the case I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Thus, the bail application stands rejected.
It is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the trial and make necessary endeavour to conclude the same within a period of six months provided the applicant would render all necessary co-operation in early conclusion of the trial.
Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance."
In the second bail application, material with regard to the age and ailment of applicant has duly been brought on record. As per voter I.D. Card, the age of applicant is 70 years and applicant is also suffering from disease which has been explained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit. Learned A.G.A. was granted time to file counter affidavit. He admits that factum regarding age of the applicant and his suffering from disease are not disputed.
Accordingly, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant Mamchand involved in Case Crime No. 0380 of 2018, under Section 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station, T.P. Naagar, District Meerut, be enlarged on bail 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 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 date 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 I.P.C..
(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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 13.11.2019 HSM