The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to the accused of murder and child marriage.
A Single Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Ashok.
The prosecution story is that the informant’s sister namely Babita was married prior to 15 years with Anil son of Rajveer and two children namely, Jyoti aged about 13 years, Vishal aged about one year, were born. One year year before, his brother-in-law (Anil) wants to marry his daughter with a mid-aged person namely, Ashok (applicant) which was resisted by his sister. On Teej, when the informant went to her in-laws house, his sister was not found, on query, it was told that she had gone to her relative’s house.
The informant was not permitted to meet with his niece (bhanji) upon suspicion, he tried to search his sister, thereafter, his niece (bhanji) told him that her father went with her mother and brother Vishal to bring some medicine`and when he returned, on putting question, she was told, that her mother and sister have been murdered and their bodies have been thrown in the jungle and he is free to marry her with Ashok (applicant) against her wishes and she was married with the applicant. When Shakti asked Anil, then Anil told him that he and one Kalu threw the dead bodies of Babita and Vishal, after committing their murder.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegation of committing murder was levelled against the co-accused Anil and Kalu and that the daughter of the co-accused Anil has specifically stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that she was told by her father that he has murdered her mother and brother. The only allegation against the applicant is that the co-accused Anil wanted to marry her with the accused-applicant and thereafter, married her with the applicant.
Counsel further argued that the F.I.R of the case was registered on 13.09.2004 whereas, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the applicant and one Pappi on 02.05.2005.
He further submitted that the trial of the co-accused namely Anil and Kalu was commenced as Sessions Trial (State Vs Anil and another) whereas, the trial of co-accused Pappi was commenced as Sessions Trial (State Vs Pappi) arising out of Case under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C and all the accused persons have been acquitted vide Judgement and order dated 25.01.2007.
Counsel further argued that even after submission of charge sheet, the applicant was not aware of submission of charge sheet against him on account of which, he never appeared before the Court below but the Court below, while passing the order dated 22.05.2006 has observed that Ashok (applicant) appeared from jail, thereafter on 06.06.2006 the Court below observed that Ashok (applicant) did not appear from jail which was continued for years and on 09.06.2009 the Court below vide order dated 09.06.2009 has observed that summons were duly served but the applicant is not present and thereafter bailable warrants and non-bailable-warrants were issued, pursuant to which, the applicant appeared before the Court below and was sent to jail.
Counsel also argued that once the main accused persons have been acquitted then the applicant against whom, there is no allegation and that the applicant has full hope that he would be acquitted against the charges levelled against him. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court.
The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.
He next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.02.2021, having no criminal history.
Per contra, A.G.A as well as counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.
“After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the main accused persons, who have already been acquitted, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, the Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let applicant Ashok involved in Case under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C, Section 6 of Child Marriage Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide by the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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.
(v) 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 CrPC. 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 a default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.