Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34088 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Indrawati Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Chaddha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Chaddha, the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and the Manu Sharma, Advocate, along with Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the complainants.
The learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State in Court today, which is taken on record. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that he does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the present bail application.
Perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Indrawati Devi seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0158 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khajani, District Gorakhpur during the pendency of the trial in the above mentioned case crime number.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Akshay Kumar Madhesiya was solemnized with Roshani on 4th December, 2016 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, after the expiry of a period of one year and five months approximately from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 30th May, 2018, in which, the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she committed suicide by hanging herself. A first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 30th May, 2018 by the brother of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No.0158 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khajani, District Gorakhpur. In the first information report, five persons, namely, Indrawati mother- in-law i.e. the applicant herein, Lalchand the father-in-law, Priyanka (the Nanad), Akshay Kumar the husband and Gudiya Devi (the Nanad) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. A perusal of the first information report dated 30th March, 2018 will go to show that the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry alone has been levelled against the named accused persons. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 31st May, 2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was Asphyxia. However the Doctor further noted that ante-mortem injuries which were in the nature of a ligature mark and an abrasion in the size of 4 cm x 3 cm. were found on the body of the deceased. No other external injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The applicant is an old lady. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. She is in jail since 26th June, 2018. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. As per the post- mortem report, no such external injuries were found on the body of the deceased on the basis of which it can be presumed that the death of the deceased has occurred on account of such ante-mortem injuries other than the ligature mark. Upto this stage, there is no such evidence on the basis of which it can presumed that the applicant has abetted in the commission of the alleged crime. Only vague and general allegations have been made against the applicant and others regarding commission of cruelty upon the deceased but no allegation regarding demand of dowry has been made in the first information report. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. However, the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant.
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. Indrawati 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 :- 30.10.2018 Sushil/-