Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1566 (ALL)

Mohd. Azad v. State of U. P.

2017-06-28

MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The applicant- Mohd. Azad has sought bail in Case Crime No. 2615 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, relating to Police Station Kowali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was initially registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act but the police after investigation did not find any evidence of dowry death and submitted charge sheet under Section 306 IPC, in which the applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.1.2014. However, on an application moved on behalf of the complainant, further investigation was conducted and on the basis of the statement of some witnesses, the supplementary charge sheet was filed adding the offence of Section 304-B IPC also. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that admittedly the deceased has died on account of ante-mortem drowning and her dead body found from a canal which is a public place. During the course of further investigation the second post mortem examination of the body was conducted but as per the second post mortem, the body was fully decomposed and except fracture of few bones, nothing was found. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 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 named above involved in the above noted case crime number 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. 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.