Jitendra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42420 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶1List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned AGA 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 applicant Jitendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 187 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Shahganj, District Agra.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is jeth of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that marriage of the deceased/Gungun was solemnized with Vinod the younger brother of the applicant around 04 years back. It is argued that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is argued that the husband of the deceased has been arrested and is in jail, para-19 of the affidavit has been placed for the same. It is argued that although the deceased was found to have received 04 injuries on her person but the doctor conducting post mortem examination could not opine regarding cause of death and reserved it pending for opinion of chemical analysis report and hence viscera was preserved. The viscera report did not find any chemical substance or poison in it. It is argued that subsequently in the supplementary report of Department of Forensic Medicine, S.N. Medical College, Agra the final opinion regarding cause of death was opined as "due to compression of neck structure by throttling and ligature strangulation. (Homicidal in Nature)". It is argued that hyoid bone of the deceased was not found to be fractured. It is argued that the applicant was living separately from the deceased and her husband at a distance of about 5 kilometers, para-15 of the affidavit and annexure no.8 being electricity bill in the name of wife of the applicant have been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-24 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.6.2023.

¶5Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

¶6After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is jeth of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. Viscera report does not contain any chemical substance or poison. Cause of death is due to compression of neck structure by throttling and ligature strangulation. (Homicidal in Nature). The applicant is living separately with the deceased and her husband. The husband 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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶8Let the applicant-Jitendra, 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant 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 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.

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.

(V) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him 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 applicant.

¶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 applicant to prison.

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