Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11098 of 2005 Applicant :- Bidiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anubhav Chandra,V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.04.2005 and further proceedings of Case No. 3924 of 2005 arising out of Case Crime No. 187 of 2005, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
An interim order to the following effect was granted by this Court:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. Applicant Smt. Bindiya is married sister-in-law of the deceased. Issue notice to respondent no. 2.
Counter affidavit may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two week thereafter.
List thereafter.
Meanwhile, further proceedings in Case No. 3924 of 2005, in Case Crime No. 187/2005, State Vs Ram Mehar and others, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing."
Apparently as a result of the interim order the Trial Court has not proceeded against any of the accuses persons besides the applicant.
At the very outset, Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not press the prayers made in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand, recasts the relief.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the sister-in-law of the deceased. As per evidence in record the prosecution does not dispute the fact that the applicant is married and lives separately with her husband at Allahabad. Rest of the family members namely (Jaideep) the husband of the deceased , the mother in law as well as the father in law has been enlarged on bail. The applicant is also entitled to parity. Moreover, she is a lady with two small children.
In the light of the submissions learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail application of the applicant may be considered on the same day and in the light of the parity to which she is entitled with the other accused who are already enlarged on bail.
I see merit in the submission of Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant. The learned Trial Court shall consider the bail application of the applicant in the light of the fact that the husband of the deceased as well as the father in law and mother in law have been enlarged on bail. The applicant is entitled to parity, with the other accused who have been enlarged on bail. Further, the applicant was already married and living separately in her marital home in district Allahabad. She has two small children to care for. The Trial Court shall decide the bail application of the applicant in the light of the above facts. The bail application shall be decided expeditiously in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement entered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. preferably on the same day.
No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till her bail application is decided by the learned court. In case, the applicant does not file a bail application within a period of six weeks this protection shall stand vacated.
The applicant under takes to move a bail application within a period of six weeks.
The interim order dated 16.08.2005 stands vacated.
The Trial Court shall proceed expeditiously against all the accused persons.
With the above directions the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Pravin