Rameshwar and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47366 of 2023 Applicant :- Rameshwar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Rameshwar and Rajkumari, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 378 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Soron, District Kasganj.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased. It is argued that the general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants. The marriage of the deceased Hridesh was solemnized with Karuva @ Karan Singh the sons of the applicants around five years back. It is argued in the postmortem report a single injury being a ligature mark has been found on the body of the deceased and the doctor has opined the cause of death due to antimortem hanging. Karuva @ Karan Singh the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicants and as such there are no chances of the applicants tampering with evidence. He further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 29 of the affidavit and are in jail since 10.07.2023.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicants are named in the First Information Report and there are allegations against them.

¶6After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging. No other bodily injury has been found on the body of the deceased except for a ligature mark. Karuva @ Karan Singh the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶7Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶8Let the applicants Rameshwar and Rajkumari, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

(v) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶9The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶10The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad