Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41767 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Dhunni Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant Smt. Dhunni Devi for seeking her enlargement on bail in S.T. No. 244 of 2018 (State Versus Medi Lal & Another) pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehpur arising out of Case Crime No. 0067 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hussainganj, Distrcit Fatehpur during the pendency of the trial.
It transpires from the record that the marriage of Devar of the applicant, namely, Medi Lal was solemnized with Radha Devi on 26th May, 2013 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. After expiry of a period of four years and ten months from the date of marriage of Devar of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 1st April, 2018, in which Devrani of the applicant died as she consumed some poisonous substance. Upon happening of the aforesaid occurrence, an application was submitted by Ram Khelawan the brother of the deceased at the concerned Police Station informing the Police of the occurrence. However, in the aforesaid application, no allegation was made either against the present applicant or the husband of the deceased. This application submitted by the brother of the deceased was entered in G.D. of the concerned Police Station vide G.D. Entry No. 031 of 2018 dated 1st April, 2018. On the basis of the aforesaid information inquest of the deceased was conducted on 1st April, 2018. However, according to the Panch witnesses, no definite opinion could be given regarding the nature of the death of the deceased. The post- mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on the next date i.e. on 2nd April, 2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased could not assign any definite cause behind the death of the deceased. Accordingly, viscera of the deceased was preserved. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged with a delay of 7 days on 8th April, 2018 by the father of the deceased, namely, Sant Lal, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0067 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hussainganj, Distrcit Fatehpur. In the aforesaid first information report, two persons, namely, Medi Lal-husband and Smt. Dhunni Devi-Jethani of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police, upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., has submitted a charge-sheet dated 29th June, 2018 against both the named accused. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 29th June, 2018, cognizance has been taken by the court concerned vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 7th August, 2018. Thereafter the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, S.T. No. 244 of 2018 (State Versus Medi Lal & Another) came to be registered. The same is said to be pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Jethani of deceased but she is innocent. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. The applicant is in jail since 29th June, 2018. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is separately residing from the family of the deceased. To buttress his submissions, he has referred to the Ration Card of the present applicant, photo copy of which is on record at page 49 of the paper book. It is further submitted that the deceased was a short tempered lady and she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. Referring to the viscera report of the deceased dated 27th November, 2018, it is urged that the deceased had consumed Aluminium Phosphide. Absence of any external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased clearly goes to show the innocence of the present applicant at this stage. General and omnibus allegations regarding demand of dowry have been made in the first information report. However, the applicant is not said to be beneficiary of the same. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. No statement of the deceased was recorded nor there is any dying declaration of the deceased. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is, thus, urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being Jethani of the deceased is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. However, he could not dispute the factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Smt. Dhunni Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, 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 THE HIM/HER 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Sushil/-