Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45031 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Mithlesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Arvind Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Prashant Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application for bail has been filed by the applicant-Smt. Mithlesh seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Shivli, District-Knapur Dehat, during the pendency of the trial of the above mentioned case crime number.
Perused the record.
From the record, it appears that the marriage of the son of the applicant, namely, Vikas was solemnized with Shama on 23.02.2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. However, just after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of the marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 28.05.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died as she had committed suicide by hanging herself. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 28.05.2018 on the information given by the family members of the applicant to the concerned Magistrate. The inquest was conducted by the Tehsildar, who retrieved the dead body of the deceased from the hanging position. In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was said to be suicidal. The first information report in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 29.05.2018 by the brother of the deceased, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0188 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act,Police Station-Shivli, District-Ramabai Nagar (Knapur Dehat).
In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons, namely, Ram Lakhan (the father-in-law), Ram Chandra (the uncle-in-law), Mithlesh (the mother-in-law), Vikas (the husband), Smt. Moni, Rekha and Soni (the Nanads) of the deceased were nominated as named accused. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 29.05.2018. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was on account of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. has submitted a charge-sheet dated 28.08.2018 against the father-in-law (the applicant herein), the mother-in-law and the husband. The investigation in respect of the other named accused is said to be still pending. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 30.08.2018. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a middle aged woman aged about 50 years. The applicant is in Jail since 02.06.2018. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one. The deceased was a short tempered lady and has taken the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself. No external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark. Upto this stage, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the applicant has even abetted in the commission of the crime. General and omnibus allegations have been made in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry. The husband of the deceased is already languishing in jail. The co-accused Ram Lakhan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2018. The case of the present applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased is identical and similar to that of the co-accused Ram Lakhan the father of the deceased. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has failed to discharge the burden, which is required to be discharged in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon consideration of the evidence on record as well as the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant-Smt. Mithlesh 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 him 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 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 :- 27.11.2018 Ravi Kant