Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is husband of the deceased who was married to the deceased on 08.02.2004 and the applicant is in jail since 09.09.2004. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 16.04.2007 regarding the occurrence which was said to have occurred on 27.03.2007 and on the basis of which a first information report was ordered to be lodged on 12.09.2007, thus, there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. Although the informant Mohd. Shafeek was present when the inquest report was been prepared on 27.03.2007. Since the informant had information about the death, there is no reason why the first information was not lodged immediately. It has further been contended that that the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. Thus, the accused is entitled to bail, since practically all the witnesses recorded by the I.O. have said that the deceased had died a natural death due to illness. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has argued that the deceased was administered Indosalfas Poison, as is evidence from the viscera report and the accused is not entitled to bail. Having regard to the evidence likely to be adduced, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Let the applicant Mohammad Akram, involved in Case Crime No. 311 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Handia, District Allahabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 :- 17.11.2014/sailesh ——————