ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased.? According to the prosecution case, the marriage of Smt. Amita was performed with Himansu, on 24th April, 2002.? There was some family disputes and hence an agreement took place between the parties and in compliance of the agreement Himanshu and deceased were living separately.? There was a male child namely Raja from their wedlock.? House was given in the year 2003 in compliance of the compromise.? As far as the letters written by the deceased are concerned, those letters are of the year 2002 when she was living with the joint family along with the applicant, her husband and other family members.?? On the basis of false allegation, applicant was also implicated.? According to the post mortem report, the cause of death was found strangulation.? Case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused even in the allegation when the letter was written by the deceased the allegation was not against the applicant.? In view of the facts, applicant is entitled for bail.? He is in jail since 25.12.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is father in-law of deceased.? In view of the letters written by the deceased, complaint? was? also against the applicant.? It appears that she was put to death because the demand of dowry could not be fulfilled.? It is the case of strangulation hence it is not possible for husband to commit offence without assisted by any other person.? In view of the fact that the applicant was there in the Santro Car in front of house and subsequently dead body was seen in the Santro car hence he is not entitled for bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merit, it is a fit case for bail.? Let the applicant Rakesh Bansal be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 1067 of 2011, under sections 302 and 498A I.P.C, P.S. Nai Mandi, District-Muzaffarnagar with the following conditions: 1) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3) The applicant will appear before the court concerned on the date fixed unless personal appearance is exempted. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and to take the applicant into custody.;