Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1568 (ALL)

Ram Prakash Vishwakarma v. State of U. P.

2017-06-29

RAMESH SINHA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sri S.K. Dubey has filed vakalatnama on behalf of complainant which is taken on record. Heard Sri Ankur Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri R.S. Parihar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the marriage between the applicant and the deceased was solemnized six months ago but the deceased was pressurizing the applicant to live separately from his parents which the applicant refused on account of which the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. He submits that at the time of incident the applicant was at his place of work and when he came to know about the incident, he immediately rushed to his house and taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment. He submits that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under section 307 I.P.C. but when the deceased died the same was converted under section 304-B I.P.C. As per the post mortem report, one ligature mark and one abrasion has been found on the person of the deceased except the same no ante mortem injury is found on the person of the deceased. He submits that the said injuries can be caused due to hanging. The applicant being the husband of the deceased has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 23.5.2016. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. 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 Ram Prakash Vishwakarma involved in Case Crime No. 343 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar 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. Let the applicant Ram Prakash Vishwakarma involved in Case Crime No. 343 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar 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.