On an Order dated, 20th of August, Ramkumar (applicant) was granted bail with regards to an urgent application that was filed by him on 19th August, 2020 to seek bail which he sent through email. The urgency was because he had a 2-year-old son and no one was there to take care of him.
Background of the Case
On 7th July 2016, Ramkumar was married to his wife (deceased) and a male child was born out of wedlock. Just like in every other Indian-household, the husband and wife argued one day. Although it was a trivial matter, Ramkumar went to work without dining at home that day. However, it turned out to be his worst nightmare ever. His wife had hung herself to death. Ramkumar was arrested as per a case filed under the Sections 498-A, 304B of IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act in the Police Station Bisrakh, Gautam Budh Nagar.
Submissions at the Court
The learned counsel for the applicant had stated that according to Ramkumar, at the time of the incident, his wife’s younger sister was present in the house. But, the same was not taken into account and the Officer who was investigating the case did not enquire or take any of her statements. Also, according to the post mortem report, there weren’t any suspicious injuries on the body of his deceased wife. Furthermore, Ramkumar had no criminal history. He had also emphasized that there was no one in Ramkumar’s family to take care of his little boy as paramount consideration of the child’s welfare should be taken into notice. Nevertheless, the learned AGA of the state had opposed the same.
Given the above submissions at the court, the Bench consisting of Ramesh Sinha had stated that Ramkumar is granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court. He was also directed to fulfil and follow certain conditions as below:
- He 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 the law.
- He 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 IPC.
- In case, he misuses the liberty of bail during trial and to secure his presence proclamation under the Section 82 of CrPC is issued and if he 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 the law, under the Section 174-A of IPC.
- He shall remain present, in person (under Section 313 of CrPC), before the trial court on the dates fixed for:
- Opening of the case.
- Framing of charge.
- Recording of statement.
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 the law.
If Ramkumar fails to follow the aforementioned conditions, then the bail granted shall stand invalid. The Court had also directed to the concerned trial/session court to conclude the case, preferably within one year.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.