Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52312 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt.Kusum Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh,Mr. Manish Tiwary Senior Adv.
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Vakalatname filed by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh and Sri Mayank Yadav on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh and Sri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused- applicant,Smt. Kusum, who is involved in Case Crime No.227 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304-B and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, P.S.-Doghat, District-Baghpat.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. She is 62 years old lady. She has falsely been implicated in the present case. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased has been shown coma, shock due to ante-mortem head injury.
He further submitted that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the husband of the deceased namely Saurabh. There is no criminal history of the applicant and she is in jail since 08.09.2019.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the deceased died within one year three months of her marriage as unnatural death. Eleven ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, she is not entitled for bail.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant, Smt. Kusum be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Asha