The court granted bail to Vinod, accused of SIP and dowry offences, releasing him on a personal bond without immediate sureties due to the emergent condition of non-functional courts, with a requirement to furnish sureties once normalcy is restored.
Release on personal bond and two sureties to be furnished within a month of normal court functioning.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46236 of 2020
Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.345 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Chilkana, District-Saharanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 24.11.2012 and during this period, she remained issue-less. In the rural areas, it is the biggest social taboo for a married woman to remain issueless for a long period. In addition to above, it is next contended that the applicant was in bad habit of consuming alcohol and the applicant in the stage of intoxication, used to brutally assault his own wife. Due to accumulative effect, all these i.e. she remained issue-less coupled with the fact that she was subject of constant misbehaviour and assault from her own husband, she has consumed some poisonous substance but fact remains that there is no evidence on the part of the applicant to abet or goad the deceased. In the attending circumstances, which prompted her to take this extreme step of consuming poisonous substance. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2020.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant, Vinod , who is involved in case crime no.345 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Chilkana, District-Saharanpur, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) 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.
(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 IPC.
(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., 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 IPC.
(iv) 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention
that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Sumit S
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial cause has been made out to grant bail to an accused charged with abetment to suicide and dowry-related offences.
Whether the applicant can be released on bail pending trial without sureties under extraordinary circumstances.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Vinod
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rahul Chaturvedi
Parties & counsel
