Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11157 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Hadisa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Ajay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Smt. Hadisa in connection with Case Crime No. 114 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mawana, District Meerut.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Mishra, Sri D.K. Verma, Ms. Shabina Mukhtar Begum, Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, all appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA along with Sri Vivek Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the State.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the mother-in-law; that there are general allegations; that the applicant has been living separately of the deceased and her husband co-accused Nadeem in the same premises after partition as said in paragraph No. 16 of the affidavit; that the occurrence that took place leading to violence between the husband and wife was a matter between the couple to which the applicant is not a party or privy; that the deceased's husband, that is to say, co-accused Nadeem has confessed his guilt as said in paragraph 10 of the affidavit, a copy of confessional statement made to the police is annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit which is part of the case diary though inadmissible in evidence; that the case against the husband made out by the prosecution in itself exculpates the applicant because the same is the result of a fatal injury that was caused by the husband on account of a fight between the couple unrelated to dowry demand where he hit her on the head with an electric iron; that there is no complicity of the applicant after the said evidence has come in; that the cause of death due ante- mortem injury as recorded in the post-mortem report which are compatible prima facie with the injury attributed to assault by the husband; and, that the applicant is an elderly ageing women who is in jail in connection with the present crime since 18.8.2017.
Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA both have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that it is a case of an unnatural death of a wife within seven years of marriage in the four walls of her matrimonial home with a background of dowry demand. However the learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the allegations are general in nature and the case against the husband being specific which appears to be a simple case of assault after a quarrel between the husband and wife, the role of the applicant is minimal.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, nature of the allegation, the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence appearing in the matter, particularly, the confessional statement of the husband that has been found to be vindicated during investigation, the general allegation against the applicant and her relationship to the deceased but without expressing any opinion on merits this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Hadisa involved in Case Crime No. 114 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mawana, District Meerut be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within six months next from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Deepak