Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32724 of 2018 Applicant :- Munni Devi @ Sushila Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 86 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Ata, District- Jalaun, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is mother-in- law. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the unfortunate incident of burning his daughter-in-law and the son both have lost their life. The applicant is separately reside, there is a demand of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash cannot be said to be that she is beneficiary of those articles. Learned counsel for the applicant next contended that the applicant is elder women of more than 60 years of age who reside separately. The applicant is in jail since 18.05.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the age and relationship of the applicant with the deceased and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Munni Devi @ Sushila Devi, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 86 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Ata, District-Jalaun 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 HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(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 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 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 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 :- 28.8.2018 S. Thakur