Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45425 of 2018 Applicant :- Jahooran @ Jahran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed by the applicant Jahooran @ Jahran, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 434 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 326A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Pooranpur, District Pilibhit during the pendency of the trial.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant namely Kasim was solemnized with Kaisar Jahan on 9.7.2017 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs. After the expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, the daughter-in-law of the applicant is alleged to have been ousted from her marital home on 17.7.2018. After commission of certain criminality upon the daughter-in-law, an F.I.R. dated 26.7.2018 came to be lodged by the daughter-in-law of the applicant, which was registered as Case Crime No. 434 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 326A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Pooranpur, District Pilibhit . In the aforesaid F.I.R., twelve persons namely, Kasim (husband), Jahran (mother-in-law), Hashim, Rashid, Sajid, Asif (brother- in-laws), Sadik (Jeth), Jakir (Nandoi) Gudiya (Nanad), Babu, Islam (mediators), Rubi (Jethani) of the deceased were nominated as the named accused. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, submitted a charge-sheet dated 26.8.2018 against kasim (husband), Jahran (mother-in-law), Sajid (brother-in-law) and Sadiq (Jeth) of the victim. However, the other named accused have been excluded from the charge sheet. What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet dated 26.8.2018 has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application, nor the same has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing of the present bail application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the first informant/victim but she is innocent. The applicant is in jail since 27.7.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. It is next contended that the applicant is an old lady aged about 75 years. A categorical statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, which has not been disputed by the learned A.G.A. It is further submitted that the victim who is also the first informant could not substantiate her case in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigation Officer, photocopy of which is on the record at page 23 of the paper book. Lastly, on the strength of the second statement of the victim also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, it is urged that the victim has herself stated that she has not sustained any injury. Consequently, no offence under section 326A IPC can be said to have been committed by the present applicant. As such, the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the legal and factual submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Jahooran @ Jahran, 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.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Arshad