Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28009 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Momina Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Kumar Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 255 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report was lodged by one Yaad Ali, the father of the deceased against six named accused persons including the husband Shahadat. The FIR are in two parts. In the earlier part, there is allegation of demand of dowry against the husband Shahadat and in the second part of the FIR, there is allegation of illicit relationship of the husband with one other lady Gulistan. The deceased was rather killed by incised wound. There are two injuries of incised wounds over her neck and hand. The weapon of assault has been recovered at the pointing out of the husband i.e. Shahadat. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a copy of the Ration Card showing the the applicant separately reside with other family members. The applicant has nothing to do with the demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the husband is still in jail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.05.2018.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
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 fit case for bail.
Let the applicant, Smt. Momina, 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.
The case of the applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased is clearly distinguishable from the case of husband Shahadat.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Sazia