Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9354 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Jaywanti Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Sharma,Balram Singh,Deepak Kumar Tripathi,Onkar Nath,Salman Ahmad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chandra Yadav,Sushil Dubey
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Salman Ahmad and Sri Onkar Nath, learned Advocates for the applicant, Sri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri H.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. They admitted that no bail application of any co-accused is pending before this Court.
According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against six persons namely, Rajendra Singh(father-in-law), Smt. Jaywanti Devi (mother-in-law), Atul (husband), Km. Shashi (Nanad), Smt. Neetu Devi (Nanad) and Shiv Raj Singh (Nandoi) alleging that marriage of Suman(daughter of first informant) was solemnized with Atul on 14.2.2015 but they used to torture her for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.5,00,000/- in dowry and on 5.6.2017 they killed her by administering poison forcibly. According to report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Aluminium phosphide(poison) was found in the viscera. According to dying declaration, she stated that husband had administered her poison.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a lady and languishing in jail since 27.6.2017(more than two years and two months) having no criminal history. She has been falsely implicated. Deceased had consumed poison by mistake. Nobody is responsible for her death. Even though according to dying declaration, role of mother-in-law and father-in-law was of catching hold arms and legs of deceased and Nanad(sister-in-law) had mixed poison in a glass. Main role of administering poison to the deceased was assigned to husband. Deceased specifically stated that husband intended to get divorce from her and solemnize second marriage. Role of husband is distinguished from other co-accused. There is no independent or eye-witness account. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future due to heavy work load in trial Court. In case applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Smt. Jaywanti Devi involved in Case Crime No.103 of 2017, under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Fareha, District Firozabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.
5. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 P.P.