Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9372 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Gayatri Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Arun Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This second application for bail has been filed by applicant Smt. Gayatri Devi for seeking her enlargement on bail during pendency of S.T. No. 904 of 2008 (State Vs. Kanta Prasad and others) under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Deoraniya, District Bareilly, arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Deoraniya, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Bareilly.
It transpires from record that marriage of Dropadi Devi was solemnized with Maheshchanda, S/o applicant on 21.5.2013 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Approximately after expiry of a period of 4 years from the date of marriage, an unfortunate incident occurred on 23.4.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of applicant namely Dropadi Devi consumed some poisonous substance. It is the case of applicant that immediately thereafter, the victim was rushed to Ram Murti Hospital, where she died while undergoing treatment. No statement of victim was recorded under under Section 161 Cr.
P. C. nor any dying declaration of her was recorded. Upon the death of victim, an F.I.R. dated 23.4.2018 was lodged by one Mahendrapal, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 216 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Deoraniya, District Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R. 7 persons namely Kanta Prasad, Vijaypal, mother-in-law (name not known), Chandrapal, Geeta Neelam and Prabha were nominated as named accused. Thereafter, inquest/panchayatnama of the deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. 23.4.2018. In the opinion of Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 24.4.2018. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased did not find any external injury on the body of the deceased. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. The Chemical Chief Analyst has submitted viscera report dated 19.6.2018, in which Oregano Phosphorous insecticide was found. Police upon completion of statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number has submitted charge sheet, upon which cognizance has been taken and subsequently, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Consequently, above mentioned Sessions Trial has now came to be registered, which is pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 19.12.2018. Consequently, second bail application has been filed. He then submits that applicant is the mother-in- law of deceased. The applicant is an old lady and is in jail since 25.8.2018. Deceased was a short tempered lady and on account of some dissatisfaction, she has taken the extreme step of consuming poisonous substance namely Oregano Phosphorous insecticide. Absence of any external injury on the body of the deceased speaks of bona fide of the present applicant.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. The deceased has died in her matrimonial home just after four years from the date of her marriage. Therefore, presumption is available to the prosecution. Applicant has not been able to discharge the burden arising out of Section 106 and 113 of Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State, complicity of the accused, nature of the offence 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. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Smt. Gayatri 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 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under section 229-A I.P.C..
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure 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 her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 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.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 OHSM