Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 361 (UTT)

Ajeet Singh Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-08

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicant seeks bail in connection with Case Crime no. 380 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the grounds taken in the bail application and perused the documents on record. Accused-applicant was granted conditional bail by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, vide order dated 29.01.2014. Aggrieved against such conditions, accused-applicant moved an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. which was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014 in C482 no. 140 of 2014. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “By way of present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. accused-applicant seeks to quash and set aside the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in the order dated 29.01.2014, whereby the bail application of the accused-applicant under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was allowed, subject to the conditions that the accused shall take his wife alongwith him after he is released from jail and he would prepare a bank F.D.R. of Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of his wife within 15 days, failing which the complainant (victim) would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of his bail. Although, Mr. P.C. Pethshali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate is present for the applicant, but the applicant himself is not present in person, despite the directions of this Court. In such a situation, the Court considered the prayer of the applicant for setting aside the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge while passing the bail order on 29.01.2014. This Court finds that no interference is called for in the impugned order, whereby certain conditions were fastened on the accused-applicant while granting him bail. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.” Thereafter, bail cancellation application was moved on behalf of the complainant before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The bail of the accused-applicant was cancelled on 12.06.2014, on which date, the accused-applicant was also taken into custody. Second bail application was moved by the accused-applicant before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was dismissed on 18.07.2014 on the grounds, inter-alia, that the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (bearing no. 140 of 2014) filed by the applicant against the conditions imposed in the bail order was dismissed by this Court. Second bail application was moved by the accused-applicant before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was dismissed on 18.07.2014 on the grounds, inter-alia, that the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (bearing no. 140 of 2014) filed by the applicant against the conditions imposed in the bail order was dismissed by this Court. Bail cancellation application on behalf of the complainant was allowed primarily because the accused-applicant failed to fulfill the conditions, which were imposed upon him by the Sessions Judge, vide order dated 29.01.2014. It was specifically mentioned in the order of Sessions Judge dated 29.01.2014 that if the accused-applicant did not fulfill the conditions, then, it will be a ground for the complainant to move for cancellation of bail of the accused. When the accused did not fulfill the conditions, after his release on bail, as said earlier, his bail was cancelled, vide order dated 12.06.2014. Thereafter, a second bail application was also cancelled, vide order dated 18.07.2014. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is – whether the accused-applicant shall continue to remain in jail till such time he does not fulfill the conditions imposed upon him by the Sessions Judge, vide order dated 29.01.2014? The reply to this question, is probably in the negative, in as much as, his bail was already cancelled, for he did not fulfill those conditions. Thereafter, his second bail application was also dismissed, although it was one of the major grounds for dismissal of the bail application that petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014. Order dated 29.01.2014, to the mind of this Court, has faded into oblivion, once the bail order granted in favour of the accused was cancelled on the ground of non-fulfillment of conditions of bail and his second bail application was also dismissed on merits. The accused-applicant is in jail since 12.06.2014. The offences complained of against him are under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused-applicant is ready to return the Car, which was gifted to him by the complainant at the time of marriage of his daughter, within a week from today. The applicant-accused is also ready to give a sum of Rs. The offences complained of against him are under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused-applicant is ready to return the Car, which was gifted to him by the complainant at the time of marriage of his daughter, within a week from today. The applicant-accused is also ready to give a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the victim within a week from today, as travelling expenses, which were incurred by the victim in coming to this Court at the time of hearing of petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. on one or two occasions. In view of the afore-mentioned facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is, now, entitled to bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Haridwar. It is clarified that this order has nothing to do with other legal rights of the victim, as may be available to her, as per law.